To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The Draft

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The Draft

By Noam Chomsky at Dec 16, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
My guess is that the Bush administration planners will not call for a draft. The military command, and the civilian leadership, learned an important lesson in Vietnam: you can't expect a citizen's army to fight a vicious, brutal colonial war. Their predecessors knew that. The British, French, etc., provided the officer corps, special forces, and professional military, but relied on the Foreign Legion, Ghurkas, Indian troops, and other mercenaries. That's standard. The US made a serious tactical error in this regard in Vietnam -- though it had plenty of mercenaries too: South Korean, Thai, and others. In Iraq, the US is using what amounts to a mercenary army of the disadvantaged, and the second largest military force is the "private" companies made up of ex-military officers, South African killers, etc. In Vietnam, the army collapsed from within: drugs, killing officers, etc. Citizens are not trained killers, and they are not sufficiently dissociated from the civilian culture at home to fight colonial wars properly. The top brass wanted the army out, before it fell apart. And the civilian leadership agreed. A guess, of course, but that's what I'd expect. I might add, for what it's worth, that although I was actively involved in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen's army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option. As to how long it will be tolerated, that's up to us.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (61)

Z

in person and in internet

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Dec 25, 2006 17:01 PM
in the early nineties Mr. Chomsky, gave a guest lecture in a class on feminism at my college.  myself being the only other male in the course, i approached Mr. Chomsky following the lecture and in my admittedly (snide, sardonic, fill in the Blank) tone asked if he felt to any extent hypocritical guest lecturing female college students on this topic.  Mr. Chomsky, who i was honored to meet, distanced himself from my implied subject-position criticism, if it can be called that and the conversation itself.  on the topic of the draft, i do think contractors would be a better replaced by non-voluntary troops.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By May, Thaddeus at Mar 30, 2005 16:25 PM
"I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen's army" i think i'll go throw up now.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Kertes, Tom at Jan 14, 2005 03:32 AM
(con't from previous comment) This matters - because one of the challenges that we will face in opposition to the draft (if established) will be the charge that moral refusers are cowards. Our opposition to draft, in the context of active war, should be based on the moral right of all Americans to not participate in a war deemed immoral and an illegal crime of the peace. Asserting that there is a right of refusal is weakened by earlier assertions to the contrary. Additionally, we must lay the intellectual groundwork before the draft is established. Given the draft will most likely be established in the same way that expanded police powers in the days following September 11th, being prepared is essential. The time to start organizing arguments for why a draft is morally wrong in the context of this war is now - not the day after another shocking terrorist event is exploited by the Bush administration for a radical expansion of state and police powers (which the draft would, in fact, be). http://DailyDraftDispatch.org http://draftfreedom.org http://StopTheDraftBeforeItStarts.com

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Kertes, Tom at Jan 14, 2005 03:28 AM
The reality of war today makes today the wrong time for advancing the draft, regardless of any merits that the draft may have during peacetime. A draft established before war begins is the draft that provides the kind of citizen army that may challenge the advancement of war. But a draft established during war only provides fodder for the war effort. Additionally, it makes no political sense for the anti-war movement to advance the cause of a draft during this war. For starters, if the draft is advanced, most opposed to the war will also be opposed to the draft. The draft will become a focal point of dissent, and our opposition to the draft will be based on our opposition to the war. We, or most of us, will ask citizens to refuse the draft. The draft will make the war personal, and we will tie the issue of the draft to the issue of the war. If we start in favor of the draft, we will not only be blamed for the draft if established, but we will seem unprincipled in our later opposition to it. (con't, next comment) http://DailyDraftDispatch.org http://draftfreedom.org http://StopTheDraftBeforeItStarts.com

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By K, Mr at Jan 04, 2005 09:42 AM
no draft. the poor american worker will either have to choose between walmart for minimum wage or go into the military. outsourcing works wonders for the economic viability of options for workers. let me see army or walmart? incentives are few for either yet one has to pay the bills. no draft it's not needed. the hominids are going to join up because they have too. a word on private corp merc armies. too expensive. the grunts of the good old usa are cheaper. less costs. less equipment. less worries. the underclass of society is much better at carrying out warcrimes than paid elite contractors. those paid contractors are needed elsewhere for other bushism schemes. here's the scoop for a great career try warcrimes in falluja. i'm signing up. i'll go down in history. legal murder in the name of freedom. wait every dysfunctional freak in the united states probably has joined up! the havoc is obviously showing. good old american army, the best cons money can buy!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Neptunert, Maninblack at Dec 27, 2004 08:55 AM
I thought Dr. Chomsky's thoughts on the draft were illuminating. I thought that Paul Krugman's (of the despised NYT) thoughts on why Bush was lying when he made the promise of no draft were illuminating. Krugman compared Bush's promise to not return to a draft in 2004 to his promise that we can have a tax cut and increase military spending and not run up huge deficets in 2000. Krugman said the numbers were in contridiction to Bush's promise in both instances. In order to maintain our troop levels where they need to be to insure our dominance and the World Bank and IMF's global ambitions, we need more troops. Chomsky pointed out that Bush would probably prefer to use privatized mercanaries like DynCorp anyway, and that's valid. It is still up in the air and there was that disturbing pre-election planning for draft boards etc!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Barry17, Bbtoronto at Dec 26, 2004 00:07 AM
In considering the question of the draft, my feeling is that a de facto if not de jure draft is inevitable given the state of affairs in Iraq and the likely increase in violence there and elsewhere in 2005. However, while the draft as such may not be on the immediate horizon, my guess is ways will be found to increase the military's strength through backdoor means. These could include: offering convicted low-level criminals and/or debtors the choice between prison or military service, tieing military service to student loans and other means in which less powerful citizens are slapped into uniform one way or another.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By One, Unit at Dec 23, 2004 22:41 PM
I am 100% in favor of a draft. This is the ONLY way it seems for the common people to vote on going to war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Ragu6, Ragu at Dec 20, 2004 23:01 PM
I think it takes nuts to do what people involved in popular movements are doing; challenging and pressing for real democracy, questioning and making the state accountable for its actions. It's an enormous commitment but its real and it's only going to get stronger. Peace…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Ragu6, Ragu at Dec 20, 2004 23:00 PM
One other thing I was just like you and not much different than most people you encounter, I work, drink, have sex, go to school and one day I just decided to think… it did not mean I had to stop everything I was doing I just became more conscious of the fact I have a responsibility to question my assumptions and understand how certain situations arise. With that I was able to overcome simplifications like blaming people's despair on overpopulation. I found out that this country is immoral on a lot of fronts and that the people in power know it, that we are doing a disservice to people in uniform and a greater disservice to the people we bomb and kill indiscriminately. It was a big leap forward for me to consider this. That is, powerful people act according to their interests and the state is used as their instrument. It's true in the case of Nazi Germany and to the same extant in the USA. But try explaining that to somebody who is fervently patriotic and you would get a reaction that borders on insanity…it would be like telling a religious extremist that God is the force of evil. I know because I was one of them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Ragu6, Ragu at Dec 20, 2004 22:58 PM
Realpc I think that you are just after a reaction. Either you have nothing to do or you have some sort issue that you need to sort out. You keep going over the same thing and repeating yourself without offering a counter-argument or position. Actually I am quite surprised the members of this forum have had so much patience with you. I offer this maybe as way out of your resentment: try to look at people as people not things to be used and discarded once their utility is over. Try to understand what role you play in your governments actions. In case you come to the conclusion that my country is right for better or for worse then good luck in the future its sad but good luck.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 20, 2004 08:53 AM
RealPc, I now believe that you are either a right-wing lunatic who is unswayed by facts and logical arguments, or someone purposefully posting ridiculous comments only to see their effects. Your consistent over-simplifications and over-generalizations - combined with your almost complete disregard for facts - lead me to disengage from further discussion. I guess Sigma recognized this earlier than I did.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 20, 2004 07:46 AM
The Soviet Union was as "socialist" as the Catholic Church is "Christian". The parallel is quite remarkable, actually. In both cases a movement(social/spiritual) was hijacked by a group of ambitious men. These men then proceed to destroy all diversity within the movement and then imposed a strict, rigid structure of orthodoxy which turned a living movement into a "corporation", completed with rigid hierearcy and command structure(head office at Moscow/Rome), effectively killing it. The Soviet version of "socialism" is a grotesquely mumified version of its former self, similarly to the stuffed, dead saints that the Church put on display.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 20, 2004 06:29 AM
Finally, it is difficult to blame a "weak country" for its own failure if it is constantly subjected to beligerence, subvertion and economical and military threats by the most powerful nation of the world (Cuba comes to mind)This is just common sense. Remove those threats and hostilities and let this countries develope in their own course. Then you can judge.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 20, 2004 06:28 AM
RealPc, I don't know where you get the idea that Chomsky equate "weakness" with virtue. He has some very harsh words against Arafat, for example. But as long as the Palestians are locked up in a prison by the Israeli it is secondary to debate Arafat's vice and virtue. So what if Arafat were a saint? It doesn't change the main fact that the Palestinians are still in jail, being denied some of the most basic rights and aspirations a free people take for granted. But this is the classical, fallacious argument come up by U.S apologists. So if you're against the war in Iraq it follows that Saddam must be your hero. End of story. That is pretty infantile.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 20, 2004 05:23 AM
Weak nations don't cause much harm simply because they are weak and can't do very much, either for good or evil. Powerful nations cannot help causing harm, whetheror not they intend to. Because of its great wealth the US is in a position to help and to harm, and it does, and has done, both. If you focus on the harm the US, or any other great nation, does you can easily find many examples. A weak nation will seem innocent by comparison. But this innocence is an illusion caused by the weak nation's helplessness, its inability to help or to harm.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 20, 2004 01:04 AM
I think you see my point. Chomsky sides with the weak nations and against the poor nations BECAUSE of how those nations policies affect general human and ecological well being, NOT BECAUSE he views powerful nations as intrinsically bad and weak nations as intrinsically good. RealPC, would you not agree?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 20, 2004 01:04 AM
RealPC, this quote of yours poses more troubles, however: "Chomsky infallibly sides with any nation that is poor and unsuccessful, against nations that are rich and powerful." Although this tends to be true, it misses the point. Chomsky tends to side with the weaker nations - as opposed to the powerful nations - not "because they are weak and the others are powerful," but rather because the historical tendencies and dynamics of maintaining power in a powerful state almost always dictate higher levels of violence, oppression, exploitation, and general misuse of power - in comparison to less powerful states anyways. By your formulation, you imply that Chomsky would "side with any nation that is poor and unsuccessful" even if it were brutally totalitarian and repressive, while standing "against nations that are rich and powerful" even if they were democratic, egalitarian, and responsive to humanitarian concerns.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 20, 2004 01:02 AM
RealPC, you said this: "If someone hated the US because it's overly capitalist and hated the former SU because it's overly socialist, that might indicate they value balance." Here, I wonder how you define "socialist?" Surely, your "socialism" isn't a system where economic decision making is controlled by workers - specifically decisions involving working conditions, goods produced, and long-term development plans, etc. But I suspect that is the definition of "socialism" adhered to most consistently, in what I read anyways. But perhaps you didn't mean to label the Soviet Union as socialist, as it isn't an integral part of the point you make.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 20, 2004 00:39 AM
Failures (or semi-failures), whether they be nations, individuals, companies, etc., can be good or bad and are usually somewhere in between. The same is true for those that are rich and powerful. The Palestineans, just because they are poor, are preferred by the left. Israel is despised at least partly because it is modern and successful.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 20, 2004 00:36 AM
If someone hated the US because it's overly capitalist and hated the former SU because it's overly socialist, that might indicate they value balance. But that is not why Chomsky hated both. Chomsky infallibly sides with any nation that is poor and unsuccessful, against nations that are rich and powerful. I can understand why failing nations need special consideration and support. But failure does not equal virtue and success does not equal corruption.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 19, 2004 21:52 PM
"But I was wrong to think that meant his views were balanced. He hated the SU and US equally because they were the dominant world powers" Ahem, if "hating equally" is not "balanced", what is?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 19, 2004 21:50 PM
Chomsky's work in lingusitics is much more than just postulating "inateness", which is just a philosophical position. But he was able to elaborate on his thesis by actually creating models for language. I see no problem with studying the structure of language without reference to social context and sematics. He is merely using the standard scientific approach to isolate what is properly linguistics from other extrinsic matters. This is no different from studying mathematical structures(Mathematics is the science of structures and patterns) without reference to the particular context where these structures arise.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 18:49 PM
I admire Chomsky for challenging the cult of Skinner but the pendulum swung too far the other way, as it always does. I admire Chomsky for finding as much fault with the SU as he finds with the US. But I was wrong to think that meant his views were balanced. He hated the SU and US equally because they were the dominant world powers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 18:45 PM
Chomsky's dominatiion of American linguistics was similar to Freud's domination of psychotherapy. Both represent cults of personality, and both have steered science away from truth for decades.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 18:42 PM
Chomsky's brand of linguistics studies isolated sentences and disregards the social/cutlural context. Syntax is considered separately from semantics, and semantics is separated from discourse and cultural knowledge. Chomsky defeated the American behaviorist schools of linguistics that had been so effective at translating natifve American languages. He dominated academic linguistics in the US so that European structuralism was practically eradicated here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 18:39 PM
Chomsky's work in cognitive science has not been very useful. HIs claim that humans are genetically destined to learn a human language while other animals are not, should have been obvious to everyone at that time. Since Skinner had managed to brainwash all of psychology, it was not obvious. Chomsky had the good sense and courage to challenge Skinner, making himself famous as a result.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 19, 2004 18:33 PM
Chomsky's structuralist approach provided a lot of insights into the strong institutional factors in the making of history.These factors are often ignored or downplayed by professional historians. I find his "big picture" approach very informative and refleshing. Most commentators on current affairs rarely pay attention to historical context.The ignorance of history contributes to a very distorted view of the state of the world and the role of the U.S in it.Chomsky would tell you this ignorance is wilfully cultivated because it serves a functional purpose. But, when pushed to the extreme (as Chomsky himself sometimes does), his structuralist framework can become too rigid. It seems he often underestimeats the role of human agencies in making history. Actually I find Chomsky's work in cognitive science a lot more interesting than his work in politics. I think he would agree.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 19, 2004 18:33 PM
"Chomsky provides long lists of things the US (and, when it existed, the SU) has done wrong. He doesn't bother noticing anything the US has done that turned out well; he doesn't mention any of the good intentions the US has ever had, whether or not things turned out as planned" Perhaps the "good intentions" are nothing but mythology ans smokescreen fabricated by the PR industry as Chomsky so exhaustively documented? There are already plenty of U.S apologists in the media and the commentator class. What would be the point to repeat what have been said already ad nauseum(and most of them blatantly lies)?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 19, 2004 18:09 PM
I agree with the last post. If there is a draft the idiots who turned out in record numbers to vote for Bush in order to stop gay marriage may be forced to use their brains a bit more. Since the United States is a nominally democratic country, its citizens are responsible for what the government's crimes committed in their names(and with their explicit endorsement in case of Bush's second term). The cherished notion of the "innocent civilian" becomes problematic in this context. Instead of hiding behind high a tech killing machine(the U.S army) and the banner of "innocent civilians", while branding others as "cowards", the idiotiic Bush voters should volunteer to go to Iraq, putting their money where their mouth is.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 19, 2004 06:12 AM
Also, RealPc, we might want to distinguish between "the US" and "the ruling class in the US" and "the apolitical, economically-unaware citizens that pay the taxes." For instance, is their anything behind the phrase "US national interest?" Surely it depends on who says it in what context, but you've read enough Chomsky to see what our media might mean when mentioning that phrase. But I guess I really wonder this: in your opinion, RealPc, what do you think of the US/transnational corporations and the US government - regarding how their policies affect domestic and foreign wellbeing? We could define wellbeing as general happiness, general financial security, general control over daily life, blah blah.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 04:31 AM
The one-sidedness of his writing suggests to me that truth does not interest him. He is interested in bringing down the powerful. Any great nation or institution, or person for that matter, has done a lot of wrong. It's easy to portray anything and anyone as evil if you only list their failings. It's an easy trick but it lots of people are fooled by it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 04:24 AM
"I'd like to know who these 'real thinkers' are, and where they live, and what disciplines they specialize in. . . " By my definition, a real thinker is someone who looks for truth, not someone who keeps grinding the same old axe. We are all biased and we are much easier to brainwash than most realize. I try to recognize bias and make sure I get exposed to more than one angle. Chomsky provides long lists of things the US (and, when it existed, the SU) has done wrong. He doesn't bother noticing anything the US has done that turned out well; he doesn't mention any of the good intentions the US has ever had, whether or not things turned out as planned.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 19, 2004 02:47 AM
There are interesting thinkers on all sides of the questions. And of course there are millions who don't have the time or interest to get into depth. It's the simple-minded people you can most easily whip into a frenzy, and that includes radical progressives and religious wackos. There is a little more intellect-power on the right these days than on the left, a little more blind rage on the left than on the right. Maybe that's because the right is in control now and feels more secure. But the great majority of real thinkers probably don't even conceptualize politics in terms of a left-right spectrum.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Organum, Baby at Dec 19, 2004 02:42 AM
PPS: ( TEXAS BUMPERSTICKERS ) Met this oldtimer from US. He suggested rounding up aliens at the south-border and recruiting them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Organum, Baby at Dec 19, 2004 02:33 AM
Realpc. Da Chums is your UmbertoEco. That the neccessity of politicising language aka media has been his lot and simplification has been a neccesary tool does not say anything else than the fact of commercialized usa. KEEP IT SIMPLE. And Limbaughs expertize is ? ps many leftwingers are of course naive. However, compare left vs right retorics last election. "appeal for the simpleminded" Bah ! Get real

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 18, 2004 05:44 AM
I bought hardly anything school teachers said. I spent a lifetime looking for the real truth behind all the propaganda. That's why I read so much of Chomsky, and anyone else who seemed to have a non-mainstream perspective. I have thought carefully about Chomsky and his followers, and I eventually realized he is sort of a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. They both have the same kind of appeal for the simple-minded, and they use very similar techniques.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 18, 2004 02:49 AM
Very nice Sigma-6. I learned a few things I didn't know from your posts. I'm sure RealPc has also. But just to re-emphasize your point: RealPc, we need to look at facts not opinions. And we need to understand a (russian) society's economic, political, cultural, and social mechanics before we generalize about them. Admittedly our educational systems and mainstream media broadcasters limit the likelihood of this. But Sigma-6 is right: RealPC, you should spend a little time gathering the facts before you buy what your school teachers and your newscasters tell you. And please inform your friends also. I seriously doubt you will still hold your current views after such an undertaking. Good luck and keep reading and commenting on these blogs. (Yep I'm talking to you, RealPC.)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 18, 2004 02:02 AM
The Soviet Union had 70 years to evolve towards a Marxist garden of Eden. Instead it disintegrated. It's quite a stretch to blame that entirely on Stalin, the US, and other forces of darkness. I would say that Marxism is an obsolete dogma, except that even in the 19th century it was irrational.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 18, 2004 01:58 AM
I have read massive quantities of Chomsky's writing. The difference is that I also read other perspectives.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Ragu6, Ragu at Dec 18, 2004 01:49 AM
Well said Sigma-6. I would add that realpc has not offered one argument other than spewing conventional notions about America and her role in history. Realpc please read something other than Maxim Magazines.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 18, 2004 00:45 AM
The US is a highly imperfect system, but it has one important advantage -- our distrust of government. Do you realize that the American public, the ordinary citizens, stopped the Viet Nam war? Our gov responds to public opinion. If we were a communist country, Chomsky would have become a political prisoner long ago.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 18, 2004 00:39 AM
"your precenception that we're somehow God's Chosen missionaries of Righteousness" My statements did not imply that. Chomsky and his followers are more aware of violence committed by the US or Israel than of violent acts committed by Marxist revolutionaries. There is also a complete inability to see the difference between communist and other types of revolutions. Communist revolutions always led to political imprisonment and execution, and a police state. And they incidentally led to failed economies as well. You can dream up any number of excuses for the dismal failures of utopian revolutionaries. But they have always turned into murderous and desperate fanatics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 17, 2004 23:37 PM
Chomsky consistently points out "atrocities" committed by the US or Israel, even when every attempt was made to spare civilians. On the other hand, he makes great efforts to apologize for many of the horrors committed by Marxist revolutionaries. Look up his comments regarding North Viet Nam or Cambodia, for example.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 17, 2004 21:58 PM
>It's unfortunate that Chomsky and his crowd are somehow unable to see it. That's what I meant by personalized distraction. There's no crowd, we're individuals. But since the topics are worth discussing, people ought to speak for themselves about them, including debate, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 17, 2004 18:33 PM
"People in those situations commit atrocites. They always have, on both sides, always will." That is very true. It's unfortunate that Chomsky and his crowd are somehow unable to see it.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: The Draft

By Street, Paul at Dec 17, 2004 08:58 AM
Toxic consequences ensue, including: rampant violence and sexual assault within the services and around overseas military bases; shocking troop hyper-ignorance about foreign cultures; and overly easy soldier indoctrination in the notion "that they represent a nation that President George W. Bush has called 'the greatest force for good in history.'" There are reasons to say that if you must have an army it should be a citizen army.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: The Draft

By Street, Paul at Dec 17, 2004 08:57 AM
I personally could never support a draft, not then or now, but "voice of reason's" attack is unreasonably hyperbolic, especially when he says that Chomsky supports "any and all" methods to increase state power. That's plainly absurd. Anyway, see Chalmers' Johnson's often brilliant book The Sorrows of Empire (2004), pp. 102-112 and perhaps other pages to get some sense of the danger involved in making the armed forces "an ethnically hetrogeneous group that nonetheless differs, in several important respects, from the population from which it is drawn....Because today's soldiers and sailors know that they constitute a special stratum of society," Johnson says, "they tend to think of themselves in distinct, corporate terms --- an aspect of militarism --- and not as people who expect soon to return to civilian life."...ctd

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 17, 2004 06:53 AM
Realpc, by your comment you almost imply that by us forgoing another draft, for the war in Iraq, we will fail to save the Iraqi people from the vicious insurgents. Would you agree with that assessment? Also, I suspect your information on the Vietnam war is either limited or simply false. The reason being, the US had been bombing South Vietnam since '72. Our purpose in entering the war was not to save anyone. If it were, it would be difficult to explain the My Lai massacre, widespread bombing, and other war crimes unrelated to "rescuing." Do you not agree?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Dec 17, 2004 04:45 AM
I agree there won't be a draft, since Bush and his administration are sensible enough to have learned from our country's past mistakes. It was opposition to the draft that caused us to give up on Viet Nam. Because of the draft, we failed to save the Vietnamese people from horribly vicious communist revolutionaries.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 17, 2004 02:43 AM
re, the comment before, not the one by "dark-matter" which is interesting

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 17, 2004 02:42 AM
probably distracting to discuss these ideas in such a personalized context

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Noir, Mat at Dec 17, 2004 02:41 AM
I am for a draft lottery that is loaded in favor of the richer and the older half of the population, the armageddonites, the rapturists, voices of reason, and the religious fundamentalists. It will expedite the departure of the good people looking for a better afterlife, and leave the earth open for peaceful profligate heathens. dark matter http://www.digitalskunk.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Parke, Parke at Dec 17, 2004 01:38 AM
Sigma, I'm not sure what you're laughing about: I never said the difference was fundamental (those are your words, not mine), and I certainly wasn't defending the Democrats who, by and large, are as wrong on this war as the Republicans. (In this respect especially, Kerry would have proven a disaster). Nevertheless, the facts are the facts. Yakov was alleging that Rangle and the Democrats wanted a draft. But it's simply not true.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Of, Voice at Dec 17, 2004 01:33 AM
The "anarchist" Chomsky supports the State forcingly sending people to death --the draft-- just like the "anarchist" Chomsky supports any and all sorts of imanginable ways to expand the State power. And then he starts complaining that the State is bad. This guy has become a sad clown -- but clowns have a claim to superiority: they are aware of the ridiculous nature of their words and deeds.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Parke, Parke at Dec 17, 2004 01:08 AM
And, Yakov: Rep. Rangle's ploy to get a draft was largely symbolic. He was using the issue to point out that, without a draft, it's disproportionately poor black and hispanic boys who go to die. With a proper draft, the pain would be spread more equitably through society. His point: if it were everyone's kids going to Iraq, instead of predominantly poor kids, we wouldn't be fighting this absurd war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 17, 2004 01:01 AM
But Yakov ... you say it is elitist to think that "poor people and colored people are more suceptible" to "the trickery of military recruiters" (your words). I doubt that any of us, including you, would blame the victim. The problem we all point to is the one you described: the trickery. Whether there are stronger incentives for poor people, such as education financing, points to other problems in society, which also should be addressed. Especially by us, since we've been thinking about them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Bok, Yakov at Dec 17, 2004 00:28 AM
It's interesting how Bush gets blamed for the draft talk when it was a DEMOCRATIC Representative from New York (Rengle(sp)) that introduced the draft legislation - not BUSH. Also, are you suggesting that poor people and colored people are more suceptible to the trickery of military recruiters when this is a VOLUNTEER army and they sign up WILLINGLY? If so, that is pretty elitist of you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 16, 2004 22:11 PM
This analysis is interesting. I agree with your insight, Rmurray. In fact, I've had first hand exposure to the power of that pro-army propaganda. A friend of a friend, who is now in Falluja or dead, told me a few months ago how he thought the "Army commercial with the guy rising out of water on a secret mission was soooo cool." He was dead serious, and even had a romantic/heroic look in his eyes as he explained how that commercial convinced him to sign up. This isn't all I've seen either. In poorer areas of Austin, Texas I see significantly more bumper and rear window stickers displaying army, marines, and airforce logos. Inside these cars are almost always younger Hispanics. Indeed the system is beautiful ... beautifully grotesque at its self-legitimizing and self-sustaining capabilities.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Hesed00, Hesed at Dec 16, 2004 21:31 PM
Recruiting is down 30%, despite the $15,000 signing bonus they're offering in some places. 15k to get your head blown off...not bad.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Draft

By Artist, Rmurray at Dec 16, 2004 20:25 PM
I imagine that it would be more cost effective to simply drop as much pro-army propaganda as possible and keep recruiting office open 24x7 in poor areas of the country. The draft might bring some children from rich families in who otherwise wouldn't volunteer, but with money, you can avoid the draft anyhow; accept a job with Halliburton, for example.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (61)

Loading_border