Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Letter: Draft opposed

January 15, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

No disrespect to Mr. Hoeflich or Col. Overstreet, but I think reinstating the draft would be a bad idea. I would agree if our country was invaded, such as was the case in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, then, yes, a national draft would be in order. However, have we forgotten Vietnam, where 58,000 young Americans, mostly draftees, lost their lives in an unjust, immoral war? They did not die for their country but died due to the stupidity, recklessness and poor judgment of overzealous politicians.

It is morally wrong to force young Americans to lay down their lives for insufficient reason. Unfortunately, war and patriotism have become synonymous. Sometimes it is a true patriot who condemns war started because of misinformation or bad judgment. If a young man or woman enlists, he or she should be confident that their government is not going to possibly risk their lives unnecessarily. Again, it is unfortunate that history repeats itself and countries continue to start wars for less than adequate reason, under the disguise of national security and patriotism.

Was the war in Iraq necessary? How many young Americans and innocent Iraqis lost their lives because of misinformation? There were no weapons of mass destruction and no haven for terrorists. I don’t think reinstating the draft will solve any social problems, bond us together or make us any more patriotic. My main point is that as long as our country continues to make bad decisions regarding military aggression, a national draft is wrong.

Comments

Lawrence Morgan 1 year, 11 months ago

What you fail to realize is that only when all men are drafted, will war policy change.

Otherwise, it stays as it is, because those who are not veterans will not care in the least what happens to their fellow men (and women).

Israel is a good choice, because both men and women are all drafted for two years.

I am a veteran, and it is very clear to me that the well-off and otherwise fortunate will never serve in a war. Presently, it is only the poorer people who will serve.

And in that light, I was very pleased today to see the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/wal-mart-to-announce-extensive-plan-to-hire-veterans.html

Although I am not a fan of Wal-Mart, It is clear to me that veterans deserve first hiring, and that this CEO has done the right thing.

The rest of the big stores should do the same thing.

There is only one exception to this rule, quoted in the article: many veterans, from what I have seen, want no more war whatsoever. And they don't want to be around strictly military types, despite what Wal-Mart says. Many veterans are totally anti-war, unlike their fellow civilians who often look the other way rather than take sides.

One problem is that many veterans come back and are not offered jobs or education. They become distressed, upset and sometimes even homeless, not to think of what they have seen and been through, and then somehow have to put up with for the rest of their lives.

Meanwhile, those who have never served go on with their better jobs, never looking at the others behind them even once.

Abdu Omar 1 year, 11 months ago

I would hate that this country follow any of the policies of Israel. We are not a terrorist country. But I want to state that the war in Iraq was not a case of misinformation. I believe fully that our government knew there were no WMD but chose to tell the American people and the world that there was so that we could go to war for Israel. Iraq didn't threaten us and couldn't. So why did we fight there? If they did have WMD, what could they have done against us? Nothing. It was all for Israel's protection.

There is no doubt that they have the strongest, well financed military in the Middle East and are ready at a moment's notice when someone threatens them. No reason for them to fear anyone there since they have everything the US has given them and some they developed on their own. So why do they worry?This gives them more land, more money from sympathizers and a reason to be so militant. They truly are the terrorist state.

Abdu Omar 1 year, 11 months ago

Well Gandalf, what would you do if your land was taken, your house bulldozed, your children scared to death, your olive trees torn down, your children's schools impossible to get to let alone study and become educated, and then your oppressor plays like it was their land to begin with. Who took it from them? They gave up this land, the people of the area settled it when they left for Europe and North Africa, then to get it back, they act the part of the victim. Then, above all, our country allows them to do this and fights a war for them and will again if Iran doesn't do what we ask. How absurd is this play?

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Surely you know wounded that when they left that land, they did not do so voluntarily. They were forced into exile. You seem to be implying that they simply left of their own accord, abandoned that land and all you did was settle it. That is not a true reading of history.

You may comfort yourself in the knowledge that it wasn't your people who drove them into exile and stole their land. No one is accusing you of that. But that's why when the earliest settlers came back, they didn't force anyone off their land, bulldoze houses, or cut down olive trees. They purchased land with the intent of living on that land. That's how it came to pass that people like Ariel Sharon were born in British Palestine while Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt.

It was these early settlers who purchased land who were met with violence by those who saw their mere presence as a threat. It wasn't the early Jewish settlers who began this cycle of violence. It was the Palestinian Uprisings of the '20s and '30s that convinced the British that the only solution was a two state solution. But again, it wasn't the Jewish settlers that rejected that, it was the Arabs who rejected the Peele Commission compromises. It was the Arab leadership who tried to settle matters once and for all by enlisting the aid of Adolph Hitler when they begged him to cleanse the Middle East when he was done in Europe.

Your problem wounded is that you want to begin history in 1945 and ignore events prior to that. You wish to pretend that Arab leaders didn't support the Nazis. You want to pretend that the Palestinian Uprisings didn't happen. You even want to pretend that the Jewish exile was really them leaving for what? A better life in Europe. But history didn't begin in 1945. Those that returned were victims in the truest sense of the word. And they returned to a land that not only met them with violence, but had been meeting them with violence for decades. They were met by people who sought their destruction.

The battle that ensued saw atrocities by both sides. One side won, one lost. That's what happens in battle. But in the following decades, one side sought peace through compromise. The other, you remember, the infamous "Three No(s)". No Peace, No Recognition, No Negotiation. You do remember, wounded, which side took that position? After a couple more decades, Israel came to believe they were serious, reaching the impasse we have now. But the bottom line is this; whatever statute of limitations passed on Jewish claims to that land after they were forced off centuries ago, that same statute of limitations has passed on Palestinian claims. There is a compromise to be had still. Seize it or follow Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad into decades of more misery, until the decades become centuries.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 11 months ago

There were no weapons of mass destruction and no haven for terrorists.

Believe only half of what you see and non of what you hear. Classified information is not released to the public.

Have you ever wondered why we are so interested in Syria?

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

No there were no WMD found in Iraq unless you want to count the 400 tons of yellow cake uranium. It was later purchased by Canada to help with the Iraqi economy. I would submit that the rest of the WMD were removed and shipped to Syria with the aid of the French and the Russians. They were playing rope-a-dope in the remaining months when the U.S. was trying to get a UN Security Council resolution against Saddam Hussein. We know Syria has large stockpiles of it. They admit it and we have pictures. What's more is those animals don't think a thing about using it on their own people.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.