The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Towelmaster]

When you are 18 years old you can get married, have sex, vote(!), sign contracts, etcetera. I have no objections to army-recruiters going after those people, they should just be old and wise enough to realize what they're doing. But if you are not allowed to even have a beer(!) how can you be accepted by an ARMY? If you cannot even vote for your commander-in-chief why should you have to serve him? (o.k. Skip that last one, there can be reasons to do so and not every 16-year old behaves that way).

It strikes me as interesting that this whole 'recruitment-on-campus'-discussion only started after the stready stream of volunteers dried up... Shouldn't this discussion have been held before the emergency broke out?

[David Panzer]

A great opportunity for the country. Especially when they dock pay for "Time not served" because Private Billy died. Have to watch that damned budget

[Jan]

Jan, you're still not showing me any good reasons why schools would refuse to allow the recruiters. Just because teens are already aware?

In my books, coersion is reason enough. Why is it only now that it's become mandatory? Because recruitment's down. Why is recruitment down? Because we're at war. The recruiters can't get away with just stressing the educational and training aspects any longer. Allowing the military recruiters access to the students gives them an unfair advantage over the many other "great opportunities" that the students should be exposed to.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

In my books, coersion is reason enough. Why is it only now that it's become mandatory? Because recruitment's down. Why is recruitment down? Because we're at war. The recruiters can't get away with just stressing the educational and training aspects any longer. Allowing the military recruiters access to the students gives them an unfair advantage over the many other "great opportunities" that the students should be exposed to.

To take a page out of your own book...aren't teens already aware of jobs in the private sector?

Besides, schools DO allow job fairs and the like.

[Towelmaster]

You can find figures, TM, that will show you that many more minorities die from gang violence annually than the total number of troops that have died in service in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years.

I immediately believe that ZhD, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The reason I would be against campus-recruitment is that I am not convinced that people under the age of 18 would make a decision that would also be in their long-term interest. One tends to be pretty much impulsive at that age.

Obviously I am not talking about people who have wanted to join the army since when they were 5 years old. You don't need to recruit those anyway, they will come to the office themselves. But there are many many people out there who can be lured into the army although they don't realize that there is another side to the coin.

Oh, and I am also not talking about an actual attack on one's homeland(as in troops invading, not planes falling out of the sky). In such circumstances you need as good as everything and everyone who wants to fight for their country.

But again : what is the problem with putting up a recruitment-tent just off-campus? I still haven't heard a good answer.

[Der Mike]

Why not? The fact that one disapproves of the actions of a few doesn't necessarily change one's attitude toward the whole. "I hate (insert politician's name here)" doesn't automatically translate to "I hate America". Nor does hating the war we're in doesn't mean that one hates America or hates the military.

Criticism is every citizen's duty. Blanket approval or assumption that The Government (or, again, insert politician's name here) is automatically doing the right thing is abrogating one's responsibility. Jan

Criticism is fine and dandy. Lies and slander are not. The WORST "outrages" at Abu Gharib don't approach the level of torture and to claim that it is widespread --- which the anti-war brigade openly does --- is insulting to the soldiers and untrue to boot.

@Der Mike : I honestly don't know how you can keep a straight face when you claim that being critical of the the Leaders automatically means criticism at the soldiers. You Must Be Joking! Never heard of Responsibility related to Power?

When people say that torture was systematic and widespread, you're insulting the soldiers by just assuming that they'd do it.

They have not done it. Not once. There has been no evidence of anything anybody BEFORE this war would have ever described as torture. Heck, I'd KILL for our soldiers to be treated as humanely as we treated the subhumans opposing us, but it has not and will not happen.

Do you really think that even a critical pretty much leftwing-democrat(as I probably would be in he States) would even consider condemning Lyndy England for being just plain stupid(I don't want to be mean but just check the vacant look in her eyes) and being influenced by the top of the food-chain?

England was stupid. Was she ordered to do it? According to HER testimony --- no. She and her assorted genetic error-ridden colleagues did it on their own. The commander of Abu Gharib was criminally above her head and shouldn't have been permitted to lead a Girl Scout troop, much less an actual prison, but that's neither here nor there.

No Mike, I do not believe that they punished the guilty, not all of them. They punished the stick, not the hand that used it. L. England can be sacrificed, the military top can't.

Why not condemn people based on PROOF, not idle SPECULATION?

You're saying the top brass was behind all of this. Well, provide even the tiniest inkling of evidence of this, how about it? The antiwar zealots went insane when they found out that Bush's people decided to ask "Hey, what IS legal in terms of interrogation?", so I don't really take their word for much of anything.

Or, continue slandering this country in an attempt to portray yourself as "above the fray".

Hey Mike, isn't there some sort of absurdly large disproportionate ratio for the NYT, between negative articles about our military (Abu Gharib and such) compared to negative articles about the atrocities of the insurgents?

The NYT has bent over backwards to portray this war and the troops as negative. They carped while we were in Afghanistan. They carped and openly lied during the initial stages of the Iraqi War (remember the stories about the problems we were having resupplying the troops? Lies).

Heck, soldiers returning to the states, almost universally, state that the media's reporting of the war is not close to reality.

Well, except for the soldiers that have invented atrocities --- those are the ones the press loves to interview the most.

I'll go with a quote from a soldier on a TV interview "Well, if I got my news from the newspapers, I'd be pretty depressed, too".

Keep in mind, the press went apeshit over the fact that the military PREPLANNED out a presentation with the President, ignoring that the military preplans EVERYTHING.

While many, many citizens don't like the present war, there's been almost NO backlash against the soldiers themselves that I can tell.

CodePink demonstrates outside of military hospitals, regularly. Cindy Sheehan kept using crosses of soldiers whose families requested her to stop doing so, repeatedly. Military recruiters surely have some oh-so-pleasant stories to tell about the tolerant folks who oppose this war. Their celebration of the 2000th dead was sickening.

Sorry, you are missing the(my?) point : They are responsible for the actions of the people who serve under them.

Bush is responsible for the action of every individual soldier? That's an absurd expectation.

If the soldier f*cks up it is by definition because not enough control was exercised over him. And you and I both know how easy it is to forget your inhibitions when confronted with atrocities around you, there are plenty of examples of that.

It's NEVER soldiers DISOBEYING orders or their immediate commanders being inept?

Abu Gharib was a problem because the commander of that prison was a total buffoon and the military brass was not aware of her utter ineptitude until they completed an investigation (again, the press didn't uncover what happened there. The military did) and then took disciplinary action quickly.

Did we accept "Wir habes es nicht gewusst" after World War II? No, we didn't. There were consequences.

We had plenty of official papers openly and explicitly approving what happened.

You do not have the same about this war.

One more thing : When the Twin Towers were brought down there was no evidence at all that Osama Bin Laden had actually assisted in preparing those attacks. He was the evil genius behind it perhaps, but it was not him who flew into those buildings. Yet we still hold him responsible because he instigated it.

Well, he also took responsibility for it. Just to be technical.

P.S. And this has nothing to do with 'the sheltered dutch who have never had any problems with these groups". Search google for Theo van Gogh, or for Samir A. or for "Hofstadgroep" and you'll see my point.

And look at their RESPONSE to Van Gogh's death? Sandblasted off a wall the "offensive" words "Thou shalt not kill".

Yeah, that'll show them!

Perhaps because it's been forced on them? Any school accepting federal funding now must allow recuiters as well as provide private information on the student body unless it's specifically opted out. If the schools don't allow corporate recruiters, why should they be forced to allow the military? It's not a matter of honor or lack thereof of the troops.

Because schools DON'T keep out corporate recruiters. Go to a college and you won't see a lack of corporate recruiters. You'll see quite a few corporate recruiters with worse civil rights records than the US military.

But they banned the US military for DECADES. So, the gov't simply said that if you want to be given money by the US gov't, then your campus has to be open to ALL recruiters.

Hardly. Why can't these recruiters set up camp just outside that the campus? Surely that is not illegal or forbidden? What is the exact use of having to put those recruiters on school-territory itself? Any idea?

Why should they have to? Are colleges so terrified of open dialogue (and, yes, they do not like open dialogue at all) that they can't handle the military offering an option?

Why is it good sense? Boys (and *why* hasn't that changed yet?!) have to register for the selective service anyway. There are often (usually?) ROTC programs in high schools already. I doubt if many teens are unaware of the military.

They're not unaware of legal firms. Legal firms are allowed to recruit on campus. They're not unaware of big companies. Big companies are allowed to recruit on campus.

Why is the military the one group not allowed to? If you respect the military, you'd be offended that this even has to be asked.

It strikes me as interesting that this whole 'recruitment-on-campus'-discussion only started after the stready stream of volunteers dried up... Shouldn't this discussion have been held before the emergency broke out?

Except the stream hasn't dried up. The military didn't meet its significantly increased recruiting goals of last year, but they've lowered them to a more realistic levels and are meeting them just fine now.

If colleges REALLY didn't like it, just don't accept federal money. Stand up for your principles, academia.

Of course, that presupposes you HAVE principles. Which is a mistake on my part.
-=Mike

[Der Mike]

I immediately believe that ZhD, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The reason I would be against campus-recruitment is that I am not convinced that people under the age of 18 would make a decision that would also be in their long-term interest. One tends to be pretty much impulsive at that age.

Obviously I am not talking about people who have wanted to join the army since when they were 5 years old. You don't need to recruit those anyway, they will come to the office themselves. But there are many many people out there who can be lured into the army although they don't realize that there is another side to the coin.

Oh, and I am also not talking about an actual attack on one's homeland(as in troops invading, not planes falling out of the sky). In such circumstances you need as good as everything and everyone who wants to fight for their country.

But again : what is the problem with putting up a recruitment-tent just off-campus? I still haven't heard a good answer.

Umm, you need to explain why it's a good idea --- we don't need to explain why something so blatantly discriminatory is not one.
-=Mike

[Towelmaster]

@ Der Mike : Nonononono! I was NOT saying that the top brass was behind this. I was saying that they are ultimately responsible for what happens under their command. That is really something different. I don't believe there can be a conspiracy that big that remains a secret. I don't believe some general said "let's abuse 'em and see what happens". Doesn't take away the responsibility. Is all I'm saying.

And NO definitely not : that does not mean George W. Bush. I did not even mention him. I'm talking about the actual army, not the man who points them in a direction and yells 'Charge'. You can say a lot of bad things about GWB - and I will not hesitate to do so because I think he is a disaster to the U.S.A. in the long-run - but in this case I really do mean the army itself, not GWB. Makes for a change eh?

What ever happened to the commander of that Abu Graib? Relieved of duty? Prison-sentence? I have no idea. If you do please tell me.

And look at their RESPONSE to Van Gogh's death? Sandblasted off a wall the "offensive" words "Thou shalt not kill".

That is indeed an incredibly stupid shortsighted remark and I am on the verge of being incredibly offended by such ingnorance about the Netherlands. Full stop.
And before Jan steps in I'll say it myself: Please, I don't mind really tough criticism about the dutch(god knows we deserve a lot of it!) but in this case please inform yourself better before posting. Mosques have been burned down to the ground since november 2nd 2004, muslim schools have been torched, etcetera. It is bloody tragic that Osama Bin Asshole caused these tensions to emerge.

At the moment there is not a living soul, politician, newspaperman, columnist whatever, who is not amazed about the level of intolerance of the dutch towards extremists and everything that reeks of the Islam. The Netherlands now has by far the most intolerant immigrationpolicy(I'm not proud of it, I'm just saying). Muslims only have to wear a Djellaba to be stigmatized(actually ; last week a train was stopped and searched etcetera just because a guy with a beard went to the toilet on the train). And the list goes on.

As to the 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst'-remark : What I mean is that after the surrende of Germany even the CIVILIAN population of Nazi Germany was forced to walk through Auschwitz, because they kept saying they hadn't known. The object of that exercise was to once and for all get it into their heads that they SHouLd HaVe KnowN!". That ignorance was no excuse. But I do think we digress a bit... Let's get back to the Abu G. thingy and the campus-recruitments.

Colleges have a perfectly good reason for not letting recruiters on their turf : A School Is For Learning. Not For Fighting. It does not need to serve as fresh huntingground for the army. The purpose of a school has nothing to do with the purpose of an army. If it does please enlighten me.

Except the stream hasn't dried up. The military didn't meet its significantly increased recruiting goals of last year, but they've lowered them to a more realistic levels and are meeting them just fine now.

Hold On! That's like saying that you're making all the money you want because you settled for less...

If colleges REALLY didn't like it, just don't accept federal money. Stand up for your principles, academia.

HUH??? Colleges play an important part in supplying the American industry with a schooled workforce. They play an incredibly important part in education young people, teaching them discipline(or you won't pass), etcetera.

If you really mean that then what are the objections of setting up a recruitment-office at a funeralservice? Perhaps a service for a man killed in action? I know it would be bad taste, but what is your argument against it? Why not set up recruitment-offices at every Medicare-institution? It's a Federal thing I believe?

Of course, that presupposes you HAVE principles. Which is a mistake on my part.

I'm not clear here. Are you referring to me or to the universities?

[Karachi Vyce]

Why not condemn people based on PROOF, not idle SPECULATION?

Thank you.

[Towelmaster]

Simple : because there is a general mistrust of the government and the information they give people. And there is an incredible mistrust towards the media who almost all have taken sides and leave objective people in nomansland.

I believe the New York Times just as much as I believe Matt Drudge who I believe just as much as the U.S. government. And the same goes here in Holland btw, this is not purely am American thing.

Straightforward enough I think.

[Andrew_Swallow]

In a disciplined hieratical system like the US Army a thing can happen once because private got drunk. Things only happen repeatedly because the officer in charger allowed or ordered it.

One private gets lost û he got drunk or what ever.
Three privates get lost û blame the corporal for giving them insufficient directions.
Entire regiment gets lost û blame the colonel.
Three (or more) prison camps repeatedly do weird things to their inmates û blame the people in charge of all 3. The cure may involve changing the rulebook.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Colleges have a perfectly good reason for not letting recruiters on their turf : A School Is For Learning. Not For Fighting. It does not need to serve as fresh huntingground for the army. The purpose of a school has nothing to do with the purpose of an army. If it does please enlighten me.

If a school or college has a recruitment open day/night and bans the military then the school has to explain itself.

[Towelmaster]

If a school or college has a recruitment open day/night and bans the military then the school has to explain itself.

Sorry, being the dutchman I am I must miss something here. A school has a standard recruitmentoffice? Could you elaborate a bit on that?

[Jan]

If a school or college has a recruitment open day/night and bans the military then the school has to explain itself.

I think you missed something, Andrew. What's under discussion is that any schools that accept federal funding MUST provide personal information about students to recruiters as well as allowing recruiters on the campus. This is regardless of any school policy regarding recruitment by anyone. It's not a matter of explaining, it's basically coercion by the federal government.

Jan

[David Panzer]

Don't forget Ice Cream Parlor lists... Link