Reply #130: eloquent points, well taken. [View All]

[salin]

Especially about the point per if the US was under attack that all would enlist. Indeed I believe there was a spike of enlistments in the pre Afghanistan Invasion - as it was percieved to be an action against those who attacked us on 9-11.

I haven't paid much attention to the specifics of Rangle's proposal - and am not so much backing it, but I have been bothered by what I still assert is a fairly superficial national discussion of what is risked (the lives of our future generation) and whether a particular venture raises to the level that we would risk our own to fight it; and if not, why are we pursuing such a policy. Your point of "war of choice" is perhaps something that needs to become part of the national lexicon, rather than just a progressive term (where it is read the most.)

It is interesting to note, that I think that a national dialogue is finally beginning in the questioning of this war, in part because the rationale has shifted so dramatically from before the war and now - and as more and more folks are personally touched by the effects of the war (in terms of loved ones, friends, etc.) It seems to me that the dialogue has come about on a much more broad level than what I understand it to have been during the Vietnam War at this point in conflict. And the beginnings of this dialogue are what I believe are somewhat restraining Bushco from pursuing the additional conflicts that their rhetoric indicate that they have been itching to undertake (specifically Syria and Iran, but periodically also North Korea.) Perhaps this era will lead to a maturing of us as a people - including a growing awareness of how the form of democracy that currently is our system, does seem broken. Early this morning I chose hope, though I recognize that realization of that hope - if indeed we are talking 'era' - may take quite a long time.