Norb, you wrote: "However, realistically, it ain't gonna happen." and I regret you are right. I happen to think full miltary service has a very good affect on most youngsters. And, I note, if you were in WW2 you must be even older than me. The recruiting officer wouldn't believe any of us so we had to finish middle school and wait for Korea.  But, again, it did us good. By then Truman had integrated the services so I got to see how many of my fellow trainees, most from around the southern states, reacted to taking orders from Captain Dempsey and other "black" officers. By the end of that eight weeks everyone would have followed him off a cliff.

I also was taught by fellow trainie, Carl Cohen, that I was only the SECOND best chess player at Fort Jackson, a very DISTANT second best. He was a good drinking buddy and also showed me that even some accademics (Professor, Social and Political Philosophy, UMich.) aren't elitists and, some have a grasp of the real world. That realization was confirmed years later, by Pierre Legins, Criminology and Criminal Justice, UMD and long ago neighbor, Walt Gilbert, Physics and Music, also UMD.

And in Korea I learned that racist attitudes weren't confined to the U.S. I hadn't known untl then that Korea had been ruled by it's "slave masters" for about the preceding century. Twas during much later travels that I saw how common that is among our species.

Any way. I do believ that a draft is a good idea, dissagreements so noted. Many of those who served in WW2 and Korea were draftees.

And I'll ask, again for an opinion. What percent of our population should we have in the military? Those who want to qualify between while we're at peace or in conflict please do so.

Nick wrote:

"......where the tent for the upcoming 5 ring circus will be pitched."

As you suggested, it looks like this (Article III sections 1 and 2...." Controversies between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.") may be the point of jurisdiction, and it seems quite a question, indeed. Of course, the distinction may lie between "controversies and crimes", and it appears to me that the 9-11 attacks were more crimes than controversies, and crimes should be tried within the jurisdiction of the State....that being New York, and since the Pentagon was hit, Virginia.  I see no reason not to try in both jurisdictions, since they were seperate crimes. I'm not sure why you see it as a federal crime......because it crossed Sate lines, or because of it's enormity? The only way I can see this as a Federal crime is because the crime was committed during an act of interstate commerce. Talk about a can of worms.....or more a 5 ring circus of worms.....I'll grant you that. Obviously, whatever decision is made, a lot of folks won't be happy about it.

I must say, Clonnie that I really apreciated your post of 11/20 7:05....a lot of good questions....a man after my own heart.

"What makes a war necessary?"....brought down to apersonal level, it would be when threatened or attacked. The real question regarding 9-11 is WHO carried out the attack? Do you know that the term Al Queda refers to a list of suspect names compiled by the CIA, and not some distinct group of terrorists? Regardless, it's my contention that the people who pulled off 9-11 had to be able to cause the US military to stand down, and not follow protocol. They had to be able to get into the buildings and place charges that would cut the steel at the base in order to make the buildings fall at a free fall speed (10 seconds). The physical law of conservation of momentum dictates that they would have fallen much more slowly due to the incredible structure of 47 core structural columns that were the skeleton of the buildings. Only internal charges could cause the buildings to turn into dust, and cause the steel beams to be hurtled across several blocks, along with human bone fragments, which were found on rooftops several blocks away. These things could not have happened with a simple collapse. There were also firemen who stated that they heard charges going off down the floors of the building.....

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]    

many witnesses agreed...... 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

So first we need to determine WHO actually commited the crimes, and being the suspicious type, and after looking at the evidence,I don't really believe the official story.

Back to your questions....were the wars really necessary? Not in most cases.

If the Revolutionary war was "necessary" due to the Stamp Act, and other unfair treatment from the Crown, the American people have certainly softened and become complacent in the face of unreasonable taxation and such. If they had been as we are, we would still be hailing "long live the Queen". Of course, being a "conspiracy theorist", I see a more sinister reason for the war for independence....we don't need to get into that.

The War Between the States (and the Federal government), probably being an exception, since the State of South Carolina was invaded by the Federals, they attempted to protect themselves from attack. I am a big believer in the right of secession. It is a fundamental right as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  

The reason stated historically, for entering WW1, was the sinking of the Lusitania, an American ship that was transporting war materials to Great Britain, a blatant act of war. The German government had warned the people of the united States, that they should not travel on the ship, because they would attempt to sink it.

Our entrance into WW2 was predicated on the attack on Pearl Harbor, and you may be familiar with some of the stories about foreknowledge due to the breaking of the Japanese code.. There is also an issue of provocation: an oil embargo against Japan.........http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm

Of course there have been no "wars" since WW2.

As for a mandatory term of service, I am against force. (only slightly oxymoronic) of any type. Compulsion is anathema to freedom. Aren't we, as a people kind of against involuntary servitude? Mandates are products of Dictatorships. I believe in compulsion for Corporations, but not for people.

The question also clearly indicates how far we have strayed from our founding principles. Being a strict Constitutionalist, my "country" would be Virginia. The Federal government was limited to ten square miles and a very limited purpose and it's creation was a contractual agreement between the States (even though it does say "WE the People, which, by the way, angered Jefferson). Of course, the agreement was that if one State were attacked, the others would join in. The Constitution makes fairly clear dilineation between "Armies" and "Militia"....Armies were not to be standing armies (appropriations for two years), but the Militia was all of the people, trained to arms. A Navy was to be maintained.

War is NEVER necessary, but that is based on predication that you would accept whatever circumstances you are offered or subjected to. "Peace" to Despotism is the elimination of all resistence or opposition.

War is justified (not necessarily necessary) when you are actually attacked. I would like to see a discussion on the "necessity" of genocide perpetrated against the natives of this sweet land, and the justification of the "brutal savages" retaliation against their invasion. Would it be morally justified to give the land back to it's original inhabitants?

Clonnie.....a retired Fireman?

pandira:

The War Between the States (and the Federal government), probably being an exception, since the State of South Carolina was invaded by the Federals, they attempted to protect themselves from attack. I am a big believer in the right of secession. It is a fundamental right as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  The reason stated historically, for entering WW1, was the sinking of the Lusitania, an American ship that was transporting war materials to Great Britain, a blatant act of war. The German government had warned the people of the united States, that they should not travel on the ship, because they would attempt to sink it. Our entrance into WW2 was predicated on the attack on Pearl Harbor, and you may be familiar with some of the stories about foreknowledge due to the breaking of the Japanese code..

You might not want my critique, Joey, but I can't help myself when the subject is history. 

A federal fort in Charleston refused to comply with Confederate demands to evacuate.  Major Anderson, a Kentucky fellow, rightly regarded surrender without a fight as treasonous abandonment of his post, and stuck it out through several hours of heavy bombardment.  The Federal "invasion of South Carolina" did not come until much later in the war,  What is the line of distinction between a treasonous rebellion and a legitimate assertion of popular sovereignty?  An act of the state legislature? 

The British colonies in America rebelled against their king and Parliament.  Was it necessary?  Not really.  Two-thirds of the American population thought it wasn't.  Ironic that a fight for political independence, to form a self-governing democracy, was waged and supported by a minority of the people.  Was it justified?  By the social contracy theory and the verdict of history, yes. 

The Southern states rebelled against their elected President and Congress.  Was it necessary?  I can't see how.  Was it justified?  Well... the Declaration of Independence asserted the "inalienable rights" of all men for liberty while disregarding the human rights of enslaved African-Americans, as did the state secession resolutions.  The "right of secession" can be debated as a matter of political philosophy, I'll grant you, but the question was settled in 1865, and now it's just an academic argument. 

As for World War I, the Lusitania was an armed British liner (not American), loaded with war munitions from the Remington weapons factory.  It was sunk off the coast of Ireland (in the war zone) in May 1915.  The U.S. did not declare war on Germany until April 1917.  Obviously there is more to the story.  In the case of World War II, U.S. military intelligence had cracked the Japanese code but the messages were too cryptic to pinpoint the date and location of the anticipated attack.  Conspiracy theorists insist FDR welcomed the attack on Pearl Harbor to draw the country into the war.  That has been thoroughly debunked for sixty years, but people will believe what they want to believe.  Like the Coke can on the Moon (or was it Pepsi, Nick?)

You mentioned the sad story of Euro-American conquest of Native-American people to "civilize" this land.  It was driven by the usual motivations: ambition, greed, fear, a sense of moral superiority and destiny, etc.  There was nothing "necessary" about it, of course.  Native people were at best an annoying obstacle to settlement, to be peacefully bribed and assimilated (i.e., surrendering their culture) or relocated, and at the worst, hated "savages" who needed to be exterminated. 

There is much we probably can agree on, aside from the dark conspiracies you see that I don't.

Peace,
Dave

Robin Hinrichs:

A mandatory 2 yr service to country is an excellent idea on so many levels.  Mandatory for all. regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other divisive categories we have come up with.  Tie it in some way to ability to get financial aid for college or job training.  Make it so you have to actually apply if you desire to do the military route. 

 

BTW, its nice to see David Horn back.  My sincere condolences to Joe.  I can't even imagine the loss.

 

 Going off on this tangent -  I too love the idea of 2 year service to the country.  Backing up Robin and Dave Hanson - I wish we could use this to expand on the Teach for America program to promote Social Workers for America!!!  But other worthy fields could be strengthened this way - not only helping to strengthen our country and those in need while serving one's two years -- but it might also inspire our bright young people to enter the helping professions.

Also I want to add my condolences to Joe.  Just catching up on my fellow VOV's - so sorry to hear of your loss.  You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers. 

Dave Hanson:

Here is your homework assignment.  Which of the following American wars was a good idea, or not, and why?  The War of 1812.  The Mexican War.  The Civil War.  The Spanish-American War.  The First World War.  (The Second World War was necessary; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S., followed by Germany also declaring war on the U.S.  That was not something that could have been patched up with diplomacy.)  The Korean War.  The Vietnam War.  The Gulf War.  The Afghanistan War.  The Iraq War.  That should keep you busy for a while, you pesky varmint!

Ugh, I may be turning in my assignment a little late, but I have a good excuse.  Norb has been picking on me and taking my mind off of my work.  Much of the time I would have spent working on my assignment has been used up fighting off the spit wads hurled at me by Norb.  I'm sure you'll understand and not lower my grade for tardiness.  Should you choose not to do so, I'll take that as an indication that you're taking Norb's side in all of this, and that Norb is a teacher's pet, just as I had suspected all along.

Clonnie Yearout:

Much of the time I would have spent working on my assignment has been used up fighting off the spit wads hurled at me by Norb.  I'm sure you'll understand and not lower my grade for tardiness.  Should you choose not to do so, I'll take that as an indication that you're taking Norb's side in all of this, and that Norb is a teacher's pet, just as I had suspected all along.

Nice try.  I'll just tell you what I say to all my students: I know you can do better.

Dave Hanson:

Here is your homework assignment.  Which of the following American wars was a good idea, or not, and why?  The War of 1812.  The Mexican War.  The Civil War.  The Spanish-American War.  The First World War.  (The Second World War was necessary; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S., followed by Germany also declaring war on the U.S.  That was not something that could have been patched up with diplomacy.)  The Korean War.  The Vietnam War.  The Gulf War.  The Afghanistan War.  The Iraq War.  That should keep you busy for a while, you pesky varmint!

The war of 1812 was not properly fought due to time limitations, because as everyone knows, one year is just not enough time to start and finish a decent war.  This war might have been more properly prosecuted had not some impetuous scribe in the war department jumped the gun (so to speak) and given it a time-limiting name.  The nation suffered extreme embarrassment when it became widely known that the so-called War of 1812 was still being fought three years later in 1815.  "Old Hickory" (or Andy Jackson as he was known in some quarters) fit the battle of N'Orleans (they did not fight back then -- they "fit") and won a great victory using improvised weapons such as alligator cannons and squirrel guns.  This was accomplished after much of the war had been rather foolishly fought up in the cold northern regions of Canada, Michigan, Vermont, and other foreign countries.  Once the war got moved down below the frost line we were able to send the British packing for the second time in less than two score years.  Oh, they burned the White House before leaving, but the Brits are known for being poor sports.

The Mexican War  Now that is good war, but it has not been properly prosecuted since 1848, and therefore Mexico continues to send insurgents north to this day. This war secured the areas now known as Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah, along with parts of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.  Without our early victories in this war we might today find ourselves without Las Vegas, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George Clooney.  I say it's time that we reopened a front in this war, and if we play our cards right we might be able to "lose" the aforementioned territories and individuals back to the Mexicans.  Forty-six is plenty enough states to form a decent union, and we'll save all that money we were going to spend building a fence and hiring more border guards.

The Civil War  This was the only war sanctioned and even encouraged by our founding beliefs and documents, and therefore it was a just war.  It drives liberals crazy to hear this, but The War Between the States (as it should be known) was a war over whether we would be a loose union of strong individual states or a strong federal government dictating to weak states.  Issues such as slavery were side issues and would have eventually been settled by means less violent than all-out war.  Large numbers of men would never have taken up arms to defend or oppose slavery; they were fighting for more important issues such as state sovereignty and the supremacy of the individual over the state.  This war essentially took the states that eighty five years prior had voluntarily united for limited purposes and forced them into a homogeny ruled by an authoritarian central power.  The United States of America became simply the country of America.

The Spanish American War  A more proper name, such as Operation Avenge the Maine and Drive the Spaniards from the Western Hemisphere would have given Teddy "Bear" Roosevelt time to ride rougher and charge every so-called hill in the Caribbean.  Had not Roosevelt been limited by his war's puny little name, he might have even acquired the island of Cuba for us, thereby making that mean old King George Bush the Second unable to imprison innocent terrorists there.  (I inserted the word, "Cuber," rather than "Cuba" for all you Kennedy fans out there.) 

Dubya Dubya One was an interesting little war where weapons of mass destruction were used against us for the first time.  Problem was, these weapons used the wind as a delivery system and therefore they were sometimes blown back in the direction from whence they were launched.  This resulted in some of the first incidences of effective -- if unintentional -- suicide bombing.  The war was started when an archduke named Ferdinand was assassinated somewhere in Australia and I think the Germans may have had something to do with it, as they so often are wont to do.  I don't remember why they were interfering in the internal affairs of Australia.  This war can be dubbed a failure since it was billed as "The War to End All Wars," and we all know that at least two more wars (or "skirmishes," as they are sometimes known) have occurred since then.

The Korean War was the first war of my own personal lifetime, but it was really a pretty sorry excuse for a war.  Sure, there was terrible killing and death and unspeakable hardship, but we stopped fighting and set up defensive positions behind something called a "DMZ."  General Douglas "I'll Be Baaack" MacArthur wanted to drive the Chinese back across the Yalu River, but America's armies have traditionally been commanded by civilians and President Truman ordered MacArthur to un-ball his fist, probably because Truman was worried about how history would judge his previous actions with respect to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire-bombing of Tokyo.  MacArthur was so ticked off by the whole mess that he decided on a policy whereby he would gradually fade away until he was no longer visible to the naked eye.

Any judgments I make on the Vietnam War would no doubt be viewed as biased since I personally participated in that fiasco.  I'll say no more than that Vietnam was our second chance (after Korea) to learn the lesson that many Americans will not support military action unless their own political party has instigated it.  Even then their support is fragile and subject to be withdrawn on a whim.  I think it would be prudent today for us to withdraw back inside our borders and take a poll to determine how many we can count on to defend our actual homeland when that time comes upon us.

The first Gulf War could be billed as a success if only a Democrat had been in the White House.  Ditto for the Iraq War.  The final chapter on Afghanistan is yet to be written, but I think I can predict with certainty that it will be judged a big success.  Should the unthinkable happen and it becomes impossible to paint it as a success, we can always blame it on old George.  After all, he's too dumb to deny it. 

Clonnie Yearout:

Dave Hanson:

Here is your homework assignment.  Which of the following American wars was a good idea, or not, and why?  The War of 1812.  The Mexican War.  The Civil War.  The Spanish-American War.  The First World War.  (The Second World War was necessary; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S., followed by Germany also declaring war on the U.S.  That was not something that could have been patched up with diplomacy.)  The Korean War.  The Vietnam War.  The Gulf War.  The Afghanistan War.  The Iraq War.  That should keep you busy for a while, you pesky varmint!

[1,060 words of crap.]

Clonnie, as the kindest member of the family, I have been nominated to respond to your 1,060 words of mildly amusing nonsense.  Dave was inclined to just give you an F on your homework without comment.  Lib growled in a way that was a bit frightening.  Her ears, tail and back hair shot up when Dave read what you wrote out loud.  I'm wagging my tail because that's just my nature.  I'll be brief and kind.  The scoring breakdown is included (possible 2 points each for a total of 20).  

You sidestepped the question of why the War of 1812 was fought, and that was an important part of the assignment, but you did show some knowledge of the war (score: 1).  Next, you were so self-entertained by dancing into the present-day issue of Mexican immigration that you sidestepped the question of why the war was fought (score: 0).  Your explanation of the Civil War includes two huge assumptions that are without factual or logical foundation.  First, why did all the states with large numbers of slaves feel compelled to stand up against "federal tyranny," and none of the other states, and what was the "federal tyranny" that was so threatening to Southern states?  Why was state sovereignty and "the supremacy of the individual over the state" a concern of Eastern Virginia but not Western Virginia... Georgia but not Iowa... Alabama but not Indiana... etc.?  Then you confidently speculated that slavery was fated to a peaceful political destruction.  Why would slaveholders have freely accepted the voluntary emancipation of their valuable human property?  They had a huge financial investment.  The cash value of slaves, and value of their lifetime of labor, far exceeded the land they worked and the ability of the government to compensate slaveholders: $10 trillion in today's economy (score: 1). 

Your explanation of why the U.S. declared war on Spain in 1898 says nothing about why the U.S. declared war on Spain in 1898 except "to drive the Spaniards from the Western Hemisphere" and generally disregards the important matter of the Philippines (score: 1).  Your rambling nonsense about World War I makes it appear that you are either drunk or not taking your homework assignment seriously (score: -2).  With Korea you again did not address the question of why, but you did write about the war (score: 1).  Vietnam. Iraq. and Afghanistan (score: 0-0-0).  Total score: 2 out of 20. 

I must agree with Dave that 1,060 words of crap is a lot even for a retired fellow with too much free time.

Ricky:

I must agree with Dave that 1,060 words of crap is a lot even for a retired fellow with too much free time.

Thanks, Ricky.  I'll take that as a compliment, seeing as how it's probably the best I'm gonna get anyway.  (LOL)  I wanted to be serious, I really did, but it's kind of like when you see a squirrel that has ventured some distance away from the nearest tree.  You just have to have some fun with it, you know?   This exercise has reminded me of the letter I got from the government about a month after I got my grades from VWCC in June of 1970.  Apparently I wasn't taking things seriously enough and Uncle Sam wanted to send me off to "get my mind right."  It must have worked, because after I returned I took some more classes at VWCC and got straight A's. 

I need to begin getting serious so that I can be in the proper frame of mind to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday.  I'm thankful that I live in an age in a country where I can enter a public forum and be serious or silly, as the mood strikes me, and not have to worry about repercussions from any government entity.  My right to speak is guaranteed, but I must earn the right to be heard, and that is as it should be.  I may gripe and complain, wheedle and cajole, spout off about everything in general and nothing in particular, all in the exercise of of my right of free speech that American citizenship entitles me to.  I believe that right has been given to me in this country in this present age by God, but I do not believe that the right is inalienable, or that God guarantees it to all people everywhere.  Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are rights which we currently possess, but which could be taken away at anytime.  I am thankful that we currently enjoy them, and it is my prayer that we never take them for granted. 

Clonnie Yearout:

I need to begin getting serious so that I can be in the proper frame of mind to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday.  I'm thankful that I live in an age in a country where I can enter a public forum and be serious or silly, as the mood strikes me, and not have to worry about repercussions from any government entity.  My right to speak is guaranteed, but I must earn the right to be heard, and that is as it should be.  I may gripe and complain, wheedle and cajole, spout off about everything in general and nothing in particular, all in the exercise of of my right of free speech that American citizenship entitles me to.

Amen.  Remember that the next time someone compares President Obama to Hitler, Stalin or Mao.  Happy Thanksgiving!