Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Calling up reserves?
September 13, 2001 8:11 PM   Subscribe

Calling up reserves? The Pentagon is considering a call up of army reservists for the first time since the Gulf War. (The last call up was in January 1991 when more than 265,000 reservists were placed on stand-by for active duty.)
posted by krisjohn (31 comments total)

 
My friend's grandson is in the reserves and has already been told to pack. He was told on 9/11.
posted by jragon at 8:16 PM on September 13, 2001


265,000 vs 1 sounds fair. War is not the answer, no matter what you call it or how you justify it.
posted by bloggboy at 8:19 PM on September 13, 2001


War IS the answer when it is brought to your front door. Our ineffectivness and inability to address the problem of terrorism over the years has brought this war to us. Now is not the time to flinch. There comes a time when war is the ONLY answer. It is war or death in our beds.
posted by dewelch at 8:23 PM on September 13, 2001


265,000 vs 1 sounds fair.

:::sad laugh::: War has been about many things throughout history. "Fairness" has never been one of them.
posted by rushmc at 8:26 PM on September 13, 2001


Call them up. How dare you make light of the seriousness of this situation.

picture
picture
picture
picture
picture
picture
picture
posted by dr_emory at 8:36 PM on September 13, 2001



my friend's dad was called up the 11th, sent to the base w/ gun and all. today, he found out that he will be allowed to go back home Sunday (why exactly Sunday, i wasn't told and don't want to speculate)
posted by jmd82 at 8:38 PM on September 13, 2001


I personally don't see how this can be a "war" without a clear opponent, but if those ~50 terrorists could go up against 20,000 and win, then I'd say fairness isn't determined by sheer numbers. As long as the guilty are the only ones targeted, I'd say a little overkill is in order.
posted by MonkeyMeat at 8:39 PM on September 13, 2001


That's just it though. More innocent people will be killed if we go to "war". Even without a clear opponent, more agression will only lead to more hatred. I'm not making light of the situation, surely not. But is this the best idea our country can come up with? Yes, war isn't fair but we should be fair none the less about our retaliation.
posted by bloggboy at 8:46 PM on September 13, 2001


Call them up. How dare you make light of the seriousness of this situation.

This is the kind of shit that's going to bring this situation to a head.

There is no lightness, that I saw being made. Truth is, the reason WAR has not been declared by the US is because there is NO nationstate to declare it on.

Oh they will find one. They may find several countries to declare war on. The number of how many Americans find the deaths of innocents in those countries acceptable if not satisfied, when war is finally declared, will be the true barometer of how sick this world truly is.
posted by crasspastor at 8:48 PM on September 13, 2001


Crasspastor, I'm certainly not in favor of indiscriminate killing of innocent people. But I am in favor of us doing everything we can do to bring _those responsible_ to justice and restore our lives to how they were, as least as much as we can. In any case, the national guard has functions besides war on other nations, lest you forget (it's in the article).

This isn't really in reply to your comment, but I heard a congressman on NPR saying that they didn't mind killing our civilians, so why should we mind killing theirs? Scary, but it's something to think about. I hope it never comes to a point where we have to decide between their civilians and ours (a la Hiroshima).
posted by dr_emory at 9:01 PM on September 13, 2001


This isn't really in reply to your comment, but I heard a congressman on NPR saying that they didn't mind killing our civilians, so why should we mind killing theirs?

What are the chances of an atheist quoting Jesus? I betcha that same congressman professes belief in something that I do not believe in. How can I, godless and "anchorless" be so impervious to such hypocrisy? I hope there are more in power who are too.
posted by crasspastor at 9:09 PM on September 13, 2001


I don't really understand what you're saying....Are you saying that since he's a Christian he's lost the ability to think rationally? I don't know about that--I know quite a few people that have any manner of bizarre religious beliefs, but are perfectly capable of operating in the here and now in a very concrete fashion. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

I don't think you're (or I'm) impervious to hypocricy--you'd have to be pretty sure of yourself to make that claim.
posted by dr_emory at 9:16 PM on September 13, 2001


I see now that many of the posts here at MeFi are starting to report fairly detailed information about who is being called up and where, movements of aircraft and tanks and other, potenially damaging information.

Before this gets out of hand let me remind everyone that we need to remember that "the world" is watching and could be reading anything posted openly on the Internet.

I won't censor my opinions but I am going to actively start reviewing my messages before I hit "POST"

I hope others will do the same.
posted by dewelch at 9:16 PM on September 13, 2001


Let's not forget that many of those who are "called up" are not gun toting killing machines. Many of them are computer specialists, intelligence specialists, engineers, etc etc...

Also, let's remember that this is not a war against one person. This is a war against an entire group of terrorists and anyone who harbors them. That does not mean innocent civilians unless those innocent civilians aren't such...
posted by fooljay at 9:21 PM on September 13, 2001


I don't really understand what you're saying....Are you saying that since he's a Christian he's lost the ability to think rationally?

Perhaps.

It's just something about an eye for an eye rings a bell. I think that for most fundamentalist christians it just depends on who's eye we're talking about.
posted by crasspastor at 9:23 PM on September 13, 2001


265,000 vs 1 sounds fair.

This is the heart of the Powell Doctrine, developed during the Gulf War. Basically is states, when approaching a conflict, remain calm, plan, and strike with OVERWHELMING force.
posted by jbelshaw at 9:23 PM on September 13, 2001


I thought Hammurabi, not the Christians, came up with the whole eye for an eye thing....i am also confused by your remarks crasspastor
posted by rorycberger at 9:32 PM on September 13, 2001


they didn't mind killing our civilians, so why should we mind killing theirs?

Umm...because we are not terrorists?
posted by rushmc at 9:35 PM on September 13, 2001


I thought Hammurabi, not the Christians, came up with the whole eye for an eye thing....i am also confused by your remarks crasspastor

So what? Jesus said it to. People believe in Jesus. They believe Jesus is the son of God. The Word of God is the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate truth. The words of Jesus are to be found in the Bible.
posted by crasspastor at 9:39 PM on September 13, 2001


Maybe I am way off base here, but I think reserves are called up all the time but we don't hear about it. My state has reserves right now in the Iraqi no-fly zone. They rotate units through there and have since the Gulf War. They are also called up to assist in times of natural disasters - tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding. I heard a politician on CNN say that they were calling up 50,000 to assist in cleanup operations and to assist in patroling our airports and airspace. Also keep hearing references to a long term campaign so I don't believe this will be anything like the Gulf War where reserves got called up to go put the hurt on another nation.
posted by justlisa at 9:40 PM on September 13, 2001


Ahem. . ."Jesus said it too".
posted by crasspastor at 9:41 PM on September 13, 2001


I'm an agnostic for all intensive purposes, and certainly not a student of the Bible, but everything I've been taught (12 years of catholic school) points to Jesus being in favor of forgiveness. Could you maybe cite a specific passage in the Bible where Jesus suggested an eye for an eye? Also, I still can't figure out if you're saying that you agree or disagree with the congressman, could you clear things up for me please?
posted by rorycberger at 9:53 PM on September 13, 2001


An eye for an eye is in the Old Testament not the new Testament.
posted by bjgeiger at 10:01 PM on September 13, 2001


I must correct myself, it is in the New Testament. Matthew Chapter 5.
posted by bjgeiger at 10:13 PM on September 13, 2001


quote - Jesus' take on the whole eye for an eye thing

I'm not a Christian myself, but those words are still terribly moving, and ought to be required reading in this dark moment. (it's a lot harder to be a true Christian, IMHO, than it looks.)
posted by epersonae at 10:20 PM on September 13, 2001


Come to think of it, The Good Ole Gulf War Boys are probably ready to pour all kinds of taxpayer dough into shipping whupass by the case to the mideast. I'd rather see them funnel those resources into beefing up security at home. They could renovate planes to have more secure cockpits, pay Federal Marshals to ride on planes, they could do R&D on better security systems, or *gasp* they could pay airport security to do their jobs right.

Ah, but it's probably a whole lot easier, and a helluva more fun to play GI Joe.
posted by MonkeyMeat at 10:48 PM on September 13, 2001


Sorry but I don't think if I were in the reserves I would hang around! After all: there has been no war declared. The CIA and other intelligence services not only failed us but they have not even suggested that their top people be let go for incompetence.
Am I anti this or that? no. I served. Then, during first days of Korea, I got called up, pulled out of college. and that was a "police" actionm and I was in the inactive reserve. The national guard (trained and paid) anbd the active reserve (trained and paid) got called up later on.
posted by Postroad at 4:35 AM on September 14, 2001


There are proper international legal channels through which terrorists can legitimately be brought to account. And so they should be, for their actions were of the worst possible kind.

But what we're potentially talking about here, instead, is dropping bombs on countries in which these terrorists reside. There will be further deaths of innocents and civilians. That's not justice, it's simply revenge.

Such action is not taken with the highest moral ends in mind but for much darker reasons. War oils the wheels of industry. War is a great antidote to a recession. As George W. Bush said yesterday: "I'm a loving guy. But I've got a job to do."
posted by skylar at 5:33 AM on September 14, 2001



So what? Jesus said it to. People believe in Jesus. They believe Jesus is the son of God. The Word of God is the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate truth. The words of Jesus are to be found in the Bible.


I'm 20 years old and I haven't been to church in more than 10 years, but even I know this one (I think) by heart: "You have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemy."

No matter what our other justifications are, one thing we can't say with a straight face is that Jesus would advocate bombing the country in which the people who attacked us live. That's not to say that we won't do it anyway, and call ourselves Christians, but we're getting really good at that anyway.
posted by Hildago at 11:25 AM on September 14, 2001


There are proper international legal channels through which terrorists can legitimately be brought to account. And so they should be, for their actions were of the worst possible kind.

Yeah, and they work SO well. How much justice has Slobodon Milosovic felt to date?
posted by rushmc at 5:04 PM on September 14, 2001


No matter what our other justifications are, one thing we can't say with a straight face is that Jesus would advocate bombing the country in which the people who attacked us live. That's not to say that we won't do it anyway, and call ourselves Christians, but we're getting really good at that anyway.

I would be interested to see what Jesus would do (or Brian Boitano is Jesus isn't available) if, in his time, the hand of man was able to instantaneously extinguish 20,000 souls...

Of course, you may be right. perhaps the whole non-violent resistance thing would be good. We can all stand around in one huge circle, think happy thoughts and sing "Kumbaya". Although I imagine that would make the entire population of the U.S. a fairly easy target...
posted by fooljay at 3:20 AM on September 15, 2001


« Older Invert rugby player: Hero?...  |  More heroes.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments