Sunday, June 06, 2004
Reagan's Death & The Draft
personally reagan's passing yesterday shows me how i have changed over the years. when reagan was president i was at best a young adult full of idealism and certainly did not look upon reagan with any fondness. over the past fifteen years i have come to learn that reagan actually did his job well and that he deserves much more credit than anyone on the left ever gave him. feel particularly bad for the reagan family and what they have had to endure over the past years with the president's illness. reagan's humor and his straight talk is something all of us could use a little more of. he will go down in history as the most important president in the states the last half of the 20th century and deserves much more respect for his tough stand against communism and helping erode any facade that the u.s.s.r tried to stand on.
as for the states today, i have seen the following article in the chicago tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0406060249jun06,1,1719995.story?coll=chi-news-hed
it is about the draft, or should i say non-draft? what strikes me is that most countries, when they have clearly submitted to a war footing undertake a draft. but no one so it would seem in this article - the author, students, activists, and most startling the u.s. military - seems to think an american draft is needed. thus my questions, is the u.s. really at war? does the american public really believe it is at war? how seriously do americans and america take the threats, or do they deep down really don't believe? maybe it is me, maybe it is my own illusion and the world's situtation is going to be solved without widespread bloodshed. i hope so, yet i doubt it, and i think that this story shows that america really has not awakened to what is happening yet, nor understands. is that the fault of american leadership or a public which doesnt want its leadership to give it bad news or tough tasks?
i can remember registering for selective service when reagan was president and clearly believing that there would be no war soon due in part to america's problems in vietnam. i suspect if reagan were president today that he would not hesitate in handling the current world situation with a strong will. as i said before, we miss straight talk. as much as rumsfield does it, the american public still doesnt seem to be on the same page as the reality that wants to thrash it. it doesnt seem to grasp that it is facing a culture of fanatics, an enemy which fundamentally views life in a different way. americans by and large and many in western society see life as a day to day task and they care not to look too much at history or philosphical ambitions that are long term. all one has to do is visit any market shop in an arab land, palestinian, jordanian, etc. to see that the essense of time is not veiwed in a day, week, or even year but in long spans - decades and centuries if need be. the west much to its distaste is going to have to learn that the fanatics it is fighting and will be fighting have much more patience. the fanatics are willing to wait for the engine of time to work for them.
as for the states today, i have seen the following article in the chicago tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0406060249jun06,1,1719995.story?coll=chi-news-hed
it is about the draft, or should i say non-draft? what strikes me is that most countries, when they have clearly submitted to a war footing undertake a draft. but no one so it would seem in this article - the author, students, activists, and most startling the u.s. military - seems to think an american draft is needed. thus my questions, is the u.s. really at war? does the american public really believe it is at war? how seriously do americans and america take the threats, or do they deep down really don't believe? maybe it is me, maybe it is my own illusion and the world's situtation is going to be solved without widespread bloodshed. i hope so, yet i doubt it, and i think that this story shows that america really has not awakened to what is happening yet, nor understands. is that the fault of american leadership or a public which doesnt want its leadership to give it bad news or tough tasks?
i can remember registering for selective service when reagan was president and clearly believing that there would be no war soon due in part to america's problems in vietnam. i suspect if reagan were president today that he would not hesitate in handling the current world situation with a strong will. as i said before, we miss straight talk. as much as rumsfield does it, the american public still doesnt seem to be on the same page as the reality that wants to thrash it. it doesnt seem to grasp that it is facing a culture of fanatics, an enemy which fundamentally views life in a different way. americans by and large and many in western society see life as a day to day task and they care not to look too much at history or philosphical ambitions that are long term. all one has to do is visit any market shop in an arab land, palestinian, jordanian, etc. to see that the essense of time is not veiwed in a day, week, or even year but in long spans - decades and centuries if need be. the west much to its distaste is going to have to learn that the fanatics it is fighting and will be fighting have much more patience. the fanatics are willing to wait for the engine of time to work for them.
// posted by Zevchi @ 5:32 PM 
