Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Your 1984* nightmare

  1. Oct 6, 2004 #1
    * The name from George Orwell's Book/Nightmare

    Many people in usa loose their lives from poordom of bad economy sharing.
    I fear that usa is going into a 1984 state, like a country that goes to war to outside countries so to take focus away on the nightmare inside, and a country gouverned by fear. Which it much already is, bringing an even huger gap between the rich and poor, and bringing every other country with them.

    What possible actions would you expect to drive everyone deeper into the pit?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2004 #2
    Re-enactment of the Draft.

    There has been a concerted effort by the GOP to squash rumors that the draft will be re-enacted in the near future. I vaguely remember that in the last year or two the Selective Service Administration had a tremendous financial shot in the arm. I have no understanding of why this would happen unless there were a need for it on the horizon. There have been quotes from certain Officials lately stating that the war in Iraq was begun with far fewer boots on the ground than needed. I also remember the same thing being said by Military Officials at the start of the war but no attention was paid partly I'm sure to the fact that during that phase of the war people were in shock and awe of the "shock and awe" part of the war and also because initially it was thought to have been over by now.

    You can bet your A-double crooked letter I'm voting this November.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  4. Oct 6, 2004 #3
    i pitty your country...... really, it could be so much more, but most people seem content with less
  5. Oct 6, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no economic nightmare going on inside the US. The economy isn't great, people are just upset because it is only "pretty good." In the US, "pretty good" isn't good enough.

    The draft question is actually a pretty impressive smokescreen put up by the Democratic party. The Democrats created the issue saying that the current administration's use of the military will require it. The Republicans aren't saying or proposing anything of the sort.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  6. Oct 6, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Not just smoked herring, but "SMMOOOKKKKEEEEEDDDDDD" herring --- now I get it.

    You might pass along to your herring smoking, make-it-up as they go, bolshevik sources that the Cold War's over --- the west lost (sarcasm) --- we're stuck with the last of the bolsheviks.
  7. Oct 6, 2004 #6

    The only Draft bill that I know of was sponsored, and co-sponsored by Democrats. Rep. Charles Rangle of NY was the sponsor and the cosponsors were:

    Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003
    Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004
    Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003
    Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004
    Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003
    Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003
    Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003
    Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003
    Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003

    Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004)

    The bill was also killed YESTERDAY in the house 2-402 which suggests that something like this doesn't have a shot in hell of becoming reality.

    http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&%3E%20%20-%20S.89%20%3Chttp://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089: [Broken]

    Hopefully that link will work, but I'm not sure. You can look it up at www.congress.gov H.R. 163
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  8. Oct 6, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I find it pretty telling that only 2 of the sponsors voted for their own bill. If they didn't support it, why did they sponsor it?
  9. Oct 6, 2004 #8
    It could be a scare tactic, which seems to be affecting quite a few ignorant people. That is what I have heard its purpose was. However, there could be more to it than that.
  10. Oct 6, 2004 #9
    russ_watters, I wasn't saying it was a nightmare Now.

    Bystander, I've never even been a cigarette smoker before ;) Although I'm not quite sure what you were saying.

    Thought the Terrorism thread was too much. So I made a counter-thread. I'm still absolutely worried on what's going on in the US these days though. *I see bringing 'every other country' with them, was maybe a bit drastic though. Would be more approperiate to say 'other countries', which they are already doing today by activly invading other countries.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  11. Oct 6, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On another board, I've been discussing this with some folks in the military. According to them, we're running out of enlisted active duty personnel, are already tapping into the IRR, and have pretty much used up the limit of what we can require much of the National Guard to put in as active duty time (and there's apparently a bill under consideration to further reduce the time they can put in for active duty from 2 years to 1 year, meaning less of an available pool of personnel...that would be a foolish bill to pass right now). I'm just relaying this second-hand, but according to them, they don't see any other way to continue the war in Iraq other than to institute a draft, unless there is a huge increase in new enlistees. They don't see it as something that will be specific to the Bush administration, but more that we're already hitting that point of no return, that even if we follow Kerry's plan to start drawing down troops in 6 months, we may still need to implement a draft, or else just pull everyone out and leave the job unfinished. They may not need a long service period, but they need to bring home the active duty people to rotate them and prepare them for re-deployment. I don't understand everything about the military regs, but apparently they can send them back under IRR status, but can't keep them there as active duty.

    If anyone knows more about US military regs, maybe they can add in whether this is how they view it as well.
  12. Oct 6, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It would be very interesting to know where you get these impressions? This simply does not match what I see around me.
  13. Oct 6, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is it time for the two minute hate yet?
  14. Oct 6, 2004 #13
    Exactly.. Well my country and it's journalists is very one sided about the usa situation today, and I can't say I've managed to dig out my own view on it much futher than that. Anyways they go like this:

    You shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
    You shouldn't support the Israeli, but rather Palestine. And you're biased just because it's the 'Choosen country'.
    You're going against enviromental plans.
    You're digging more and more an even bigger gap between the poor and rich.

    Looking 5 years back, you had Much better critique from here then.
    But I haven't followed the politics much these days, so I'm just speaking generally from what I see from the journalists here.
    The country 'gouverned by fear' was something I also took from that Bowling for Columbine movie with Michael Moore. (Edit: Also that it seems as your gouvernment blow up the terrorist case so high so as to make excuses for doing things, ergo my thread. I challenge you to think the other direction.)
    I'm equally worried about 1984 gouvernments today as much as terror.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2004
  15. Oct 6, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Looks like journalists are the same world wide, you must take every thing they say with a grain of salt. (That is don't believe everything you hear!)

    I will not argue with you about Iraq, 'cus I agree with you!
  16. Oct 6, 2004 #15

    I had BBC World until recently. Then my stupid network had to shut it down.
    Then again, I get CNN now. I've heard better stuff about FOX, but it's a nice seeing the way you are getting some of your info, for a while.
    And anyone today should listen to news from as much as possible around the world, to get a decent picture. And then find backup to their arguments. But of course, that's a lot of work...

    Most of Europe are agreeing with on these subjects though from what I can recall. The gap between USA and Europe has widened these last years...
    I realize the thread might be seen as anti-american. It wasn't meant as that. It was meant as counter- fear of terrorism.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  17. Oct 6, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The implication was that your sources had been eating too much herring smoked over hashish fires --- Norway, land of the smoked herring --- stereotypes can be a real pain.
    The Norway of Vidkun Quisling? The Europe that brought us two world wars, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, and all sorts of other odds and ends in the past century? Worried about the U.S.?

    Glass houses and stone throwing do not mix.

    You're concerned about the U.S.? Taking over the world? Taking over the mid-east? Not taking over the mid-east? Not taking over the world? Picking up the slack in SE Europe in the 90's when the EEC couldn't come to terms with the idea of taking steps (maybe necessary, maybe not --- the Balkans have been a boil on the world's butt for 2000 years).

    "Yankee, go home!" (But, leave the money, and send food, and ---, and ---).

    Mixed messages? Yeah, from both sides --- every two years we pick a new house of reprehensibles and our foreign "policy" reverses (the Brits and Anzacs have to be the gutsiest people on the planet to back us up, knowing they've an excellent chance of being left in the rain every two years), and the world *****es us out for "not doing anything/enough," and when we do, we get *****ed out for "playing 'big brother'."

    Enough ranting, don't take any of this personally, but do find yourself some additional sources.
  18. Oct 7, 2004 #17
    Ok, we're getting different sources all right :biggrin:
  19. Oct 7, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I won't defend the invasion of Iraq, but I will ask - when was the last time the UN did approve of such a thing? 1991? Yugoslavia was NATO. The UN right now doesn't want to hear the "G" word being applied to the Sudan because it compells action.

    The Israel/Palestine issue is complicated, but the way I see it, only one side is blowing civilians in bus-stations and restaraunts. The side not doing terrorism will generally get my vote. And that opinion of mine (and the support from the US) has nothing to do with religion.

    Kyoto - we viewed it as puatative against the US. The quotas were per capita, but in our opinion, per GDP would be more fair.

    Gap between rich and poor - ours is growing, but so what? That does not mean that the poor are increasing in number or getting worse off. And every capitalistic economy has this - its just the more free, the bigger the gap. We like freedom.
  20. Oct 7, 2004 #19
    Well what's worse, organized killing, or chaotic? I don't know. So I don't think that paints the picture. And that's of course was the point of my thread. I don't think terrorism is any worse than the supressing side.

    Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift. - Noam Chomsky
  21. Oct 8, 2004 #20
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook