Military draft?

XxFuRy2Xx

XxFuRy2Xx

CAGiversary!
Feedback
18 (100%)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."
"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.
Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.
The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.
The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.
Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

What do you guys think of this? Think this has any chance of getting traction in congress?
 
Not really any chance, unless we get into another conflict. Rangel really is a loner on this issue. Most politicians don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole, and when the Pentagon and the White House are saying they don't need it anyway, they just aren't going to support such an action.
 
Well, you people wanted the democrats back in power, so you've gotta live with it now. I guess that Exit Strategy is to DRAFT people into war.
 
My god, it never ends with Charlie the Wrangler. This guy is the epitome of smarmy, swarthy, shyster politicians. Used car salesmen have got nothing on Chuck.

You must be new to the political scene as Rangel whips this out every 4-6 months, or, about twice as often Orrin Hatch goes on a flag burning amendment bender.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']My god, it never ends with Charlie the Wrangler. This guy is the epitome of smarmy, swarthy, shyster politicians. Used car salesmen have got nothing on Chuck.

You must be new to the political scene as Rangel whips this out every 4-6 months, or, about twice as often Orrin Hatch goes on a flag burning amendment bender.[/quote]What do you expect, he's a Democrat.
 
If you look at the other three times he proposed this, it went nowhere.

And if you think political party has anything to do with it, the one time it actually made it to a vote, it was defeated 402-2. That even goes above the will of the people, who oppose it 7-3.
 
It won't pass, but that's not to say the U.S. doesn't need it. The military is stretched to the breaking point thanks to our glorious Iraq adventure, with soldiers and National Guardsmen serving multiple tours of duty.

If this war is the cause celebre that you right-wingers say it is, then I question why you wouldn't support the draft. After all, you say we are fighting for the future of civilization here. Why not institute a draft so we can pour enough troops in to properly secure Iraq and give its fledgling government a fighting chance? If Bush made the right choice to invade, let's give him the manpower to finish the job.
 
I hope there is a draft!

*Waves a rainbow flag around*

I think anyone who supports the war should also fight in it.
 
[quote name='David85']I hope there is a draft!

*Waves a rainbow flag around*

I think anyone who supports the war should also fight in it.[/QUOTE]
No joke: If there were a draft, I'd lie and say I was gay. Since I'm not a homophobe, I wouldn't mind declaring my pseudo-homosexuality and having that as my sexual preference on some type of government record.

( I can't get drafted or enlisted, anyway, as I have nerve damage in my back and leg. ;) )
 
[quote name='Brak']No joke: If there were a draft, I'd lie and say I was gay. Since I'm not a homophobe, I wouldn't mind declaring my pseudo-homosexuality and having that as my sexual preference on some type of government record.

( I can't get drafted or enlisted, anyway, as I have nerve damage in my back and leg. ;) )[/QUOTE]

You do know you would have to prove that, right? They just don't kick you out for talking fruity.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You do know you would have to prove that, right? They just don't kick you out for talking fruity.[/QUOTE]
How does one prove their sexuality, exactly? I'm sure they wouldn't need evidence of one being straight, right?

( I could only imagine how some headstrong, false-authority totin' blow-hard would demand a young man to prove their homosexuality, with a nice, repressed "Suck my dick, private!" )
 
[quote name='Brak']How does one prove their sexuality, exactly? I'm sure they wouldn't need evidence of one being straight, right?

( I could only imagine how some headstrong, false-authority totin' blow-hard would demand a young man to prove their homosexuality, with a nice, repressed "Suck my dick, private!" )[/QUOTE]


I wouldn't know what such qualifications were, but I do know there was one private that successfully qualified, several that did not.

:puke:
 
part of me thinks its a stupid idea, but another part of me thinks that it would make it less likely that idiotic politicians send troops to fight in a war that no one wanted, where we dont have a good reason to be there, because there is a greater chance that their children or more of their constituates children have to fight.
 
[quote name='Brak']No joke: If there were a draft, I'd lie and say I was gay. Since I'm not a homophobe, I wouldn't mind declaring my pseudo-homosexuality and having that as my sexual preference on some type of government record.

( I can't get drafted or enlisted, anyway, as I have nerve damage in my back and leg. ;) )[/QUOTE]

Don't you love the government's loopholes?

I know I'd be gay too if they started a draft for the Iraq war. Now, if it was a war I actually agreed with then yes I would go fight but being drafted to clean up Bush's mess of a war? No fuckin' way.

People should have to pay for their own mistakes, not make hundreds of thousands of young men they don't know pay for it. Why can't we send Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld out to fight this war? Its their mistake, not ours.
 
Psh' even if there was a draft, most of America being obese, most people wouldn't be able to drafted anyways. The draft won't ever happen again. It's just too much of a hot button political topic, and would probably bring out all the young people to vote against those who were for it.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Saying your gay to get out of the draft? You would rather be shot in the ass with a cock instead of a bullet?[/quote]

Well I know I would, you can't die from the cock (with protection, anyway...).

Besides, you could always fake being gay with some other guy that also isn't gay and wants to get out of the draft. You could go over each others' houses and say that you were fucking when you were just watching TV and playing video games.
 
If you say you are gay they kick you out now. You don't need to prove anything, you say you are gay you are gone.

And I can't join anyways either, I take meds and have a heart condiction, yet they still call me.
 
[quote name='David85']If you say you are gay they kick you out now. You don't need to prove anything, you say you are gay you are gone.
[/QUOTE]

Go to BCT and say that. They'll just laugh at you and tell your queer ass to keep doing pushups.
 
http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

As others have pointed out, Rangel has proposed reinstating the draft in the past. He's not serious, but he is taking a "modest proposal" approach to spurn dialogue about the public's obliviousness to how little we consider the military when making decisions, and how overextended and overexerted this tends to make them.

It's a reasonable conversation to have (if there was a draft, would the public be so willing to send the troops to Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, then North Korea...). Regretfully, there have been two kinds of reactions to Rangel (the same kind each and every time he proposes it): (1) fear that the bill will actually pass and the draft brought back (though, strangely, this fear never leads to thinking about the greater point Rangel is trying to make, and (2) character assassination of Charles Rangel as a nutjob and someone out of touch with reality.

Some of y'all would have torn apart Jonathan Swift (far less clumsy at acheiving his goal relative to Rangel, to be fair) long before giving in to the recognition that eating the children to end the hunger is a fucking FARCE. Perhaps that's just me.
 
Doesn't even Rangel vote against his own bill? I think it's so that the issue of the draft is defeated and can't be brought up again the rest of the year.
 
Yes, he votes against the idea. He doesnt actually want it, he just wants the DEBATE about it. If no one wants their kids to fight the a war, there is a problem. If everyone thinks a war is just, they sign up in droves to support the cause and their country.
 
I just can't fathom making someone go to war.

Even if they drafted me and sent me to a combat zone I would still refuse to fire a gun.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I just can't fathom making someone go to war.

Even if they drafted me and sent me to a combat zone I would still refuse to fire a gun.[/QUOTE]



if someone was shooting at your face, you would shoot back
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']if someone was shooting at your face, you would shoot back[/QUOTE]

Woah, woah, woah. I didn't ask, so don't you dare tell.
 
My friend thought of a funny, but interesting, proposal to decide future wars in America: Nationwide emergency vote, where the people decide whether or not we go to war. At that point, if the going gets rough, we draft the people who wanted the war. (he believes the people shouldn't know that they are the first to be sent in, I say they should)
 
Maybe the reason we can't get enough troops into Iraq is because no one believes in our "cause" there.

How about these fuckers ship their sons over first.

Oh yea... I wouldn't be gay, I'd be Canadian... The difference being maple syrup.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Woah, woah, woah. I didn't ask, so don't you dare tell.[/QUOTE]

i keep telling you i don't like you like that

we can be friends though
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']if someone was shooting at your face, you would shoot back[/QUOTE]
I would be the bad guy, though. My bullets would carry bad kami, it would be murder.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I do not like them Sam I Am.[/QUOTE]

I would not like them on a train!
I would not like them on a plane!

....or something...
 
[quote name='D_Icon']Democrats, I can't stand them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, them pussys are so lame.

When are they gonna learn how cool and fun hate and sadism are?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yeah, them pussys are so lame.

When are they gonna learn how cool and fun hate and sadism are?[/QUOTE]

Just because they have different outlets for their hate and sadism doesn't mean they don't have those characteristics.
 
:cool:[quote name='Quackzilla']Yeah, them pussys are so lame.

When are they gonna learn how cool and fun hate and sadism are?[/quote]

They already know how fun hate and sadism is. Haven't you seen how they treat white men. and anybody who doesn't share their opinion?
 
Charlie's reasoning for the draft, however, is not to beef up our military, or fight bad guys abroad. It's to rope in rich white kids--ideally the sons and daughters of opposing party politiicans--because he (ironically) sees the military as inherently racist and classist.
And the stuff about 'if you support the war, you should fight it' is bogus. If you support abortion or PBAs, I guess you should be performing abortions/PBAs as well. I support going to space, but I don't see myself doing that. Forcing people who don't want to do something, or who are not good at doing something, to do something, is a sure sign of failure.
Obviously "somebody" "wanted" or at least supported the war, since a majority of politicians voted for it (at least once).
And many democrats do apparently like hate and sadism--they kiss the ass of Castro, Hussein, Pinochet, and many other two bit dictators.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Saying your gay to get out of the draft? You would rather be shot in the ass with a cock instead of a bullet?[/QUOTE]

Definitely
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Charlie's reasoning for the draft, however, is not to beef up our military, or fight bad guys abroad. It's to rope in rich white kids--ideally the sons and daughters of opposing party politiicans--because he (ironically) sees the military as inherently racist and classist.
And the stuff about 'if you support the war, you should fight it' is bogus. If you support abortion or PBAs, I guess you should be performing abortions/PBAs as well. I support going to space, but I don't see myself doing that. Forcing people who don't want to do something, or who are not good at doing something, to do something, is a sure sign of failure.
Obviously "somebody" "wanted" or at least supported the war, since a majority of politicians voted for it (at least once).
And many democrats do apparently like hate and sadism--they kiss the ass of Castro, Hussein, Pinochet, and many other two bit dictators.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think that one should at least feel severe shame at being too chickenshit to fight a cause one feels is so worthy.

You need a medical degree to perform abortions. You need years of training to go to space. To serve in the military, all you need to do is wipe the cheetos dust off your fingers and hoist your fat ass down to the nearest recruiting station. They would love to have you, so that some poor sap who's already been through two deployments doesn't have to have a third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So don't go pointing fingers at Democrats or others. This is all about YOU. About the fact that you've supported a war that you're too chickenshit to fight yourself.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']
So don't go pointing fingers at Democrats or others. This is all about YOU. About the fact that you've supported a war that you're too chickenshit to fight yourself.[/QUOTE]

I think you need to settle down with the YOU shit.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Charlie's reasoning for the draft, however, is not to beef up our military, or fight bad guys abroad. It's to rope in rich white kids--ideally the sons and daughters of opposing party politiicans--because he (ironically) sees the military as inherently racist and classist.[/quote]

To be fair, incentives like the GI Bill aren't doing much to "rope in rich white kids."

And the stuff about 'if you support the war, you should fight it' is bogus. If you support abortion or PBAs, I guess you should be performing abortions/PBAs as well. I support going to space, but I don't see myself doing that. Forcing people who don't want to do something, or who are not good at doing something, to do something, is a sure sign of failure.
Click to expand...

Well, these comparisons ignore who benefits from shared goals. In discussing social movements, groups often have the problem of "free riders" (those who don't participate, but reap the rewards of a successful movement outcome). Let's say, then, that the animals living in ANWR are "free riders" (they surely weren't engaging in the "million narwhal* march" on Washington to demand politicians halt talks of drilling); likewise, if you think of environmental organizations, anything they succeed at is shared by all people in a community. They cannot limit the air pollution, for instance, to only appear at the homes of those who did not contribute,. and not at the homes of those who helped.

Similarly, military actions are done for the collective good of US citizens, and also those residing in the area we're at. We all benefit via "collective freedom," which, we are often told, is not free.

So, those who support the war but do not participate are, in effect, free riders. The military does not, or can not, offer incentives to get them to join (neither the sense of obligation to one's country, the allure of a job well done, or the carrot-on-a-stick of financial/tuition incentives can bring some people into the military. Nevertheless, they do benefit from military actions, just as they suffer from failed ones.

On the other hand, the abortion analogy is absurd, and you know it. People do not support the *act* of abortion, but they demand the *rights* to it. Nevertheless, the right to do so is a collective benefit, but one that does not entail the same sense of social obligation to participate in.

The space analogy is a tad better (we all benefit, we hope, from space research, or the promise of space research); however, equally absurd in the sense of considering the massive cost of the space program, the level of physical (and mental) fitness required to participate, and resources in general used for launches, building of materials, etc.

Obviously "somebody" "wanted" or at least supported the war, since a majority of politicians voted for it (at least once).
And many democrats do apparently like hate and sadism--they kiss the ass of Castro, Hussein, Pinochet, and many other two bit dictators.
Click to expand...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Oh, yes we did love that Pinochet. We sure did. Since when, pray tell, did Nixon become a Democrat?

I always thought you made rational arguments, yet somehow you've managed to make a damnfool of yourself here. That last sentence of yours suggests, if you want to keep arguing the crap you do, is to turn off your radio, and subscribe the Weekly Standard or some other piece of garbage. There was a level of discourse centuries ago that consisted of presenting and refuting ideas, and did not consist of "Jefferson is a secret Tory-lover!"

*: it's possible narwhals are arctic creatures, but I just like their name. So shaddup. They can't protest anyway, so nyeh!
 
So, those who are against war, but for abortion, medical training notwithstanding, would you perform an abortion?
And I did not say I 'support a war I'm too chickenshit to fight myself'. Contrary to popular belief, one can debate a point without necessarily supporting it [though I do think Saddam is better off in jail/court than "leading" a country, and I didn't say I *don't* support the war.]. And no, they wouldn't "love to have me". My uncorrected vision is horrible, I'm above the prime ages they're looking for, and I've fired a gun twice at shooting ranges, and my wife outshot me. I would just take advantage of one of Rangel's exceptions: "He would exempt only those who have health problems or "reasons of conscience.""

The GI Bill wasn't *supposed* to 'rope in rich white kids'. Don't rich white kids have enough privilege, they've already won life's lottery. However, Rangel does want to: "The Congressman from Harlem has said, "for those who say the poor fight better, I say, give the rich a chance." " [although I don't recall hearing anyone say the poor fight better.] It was to offer an opportunity to those who perhaps didn't have one, though if a rich white kid volunteered and was able, they wouldn't turn them down. I would think assisting poorer people with affording education would be a good thing. [And 75% of those KIA in Iraq have been white, though I'm not sure as to their socioeconomic status]. I still believe offering incentives to people to make a choice attractive, will attract a much more effective group of people than forcing them to do something.
And being in the military isn't just taking a gun and walking that direction; contrary to the opinions of people like John Kerry, it can be a highly skilled and demanding profession/career/assignment. I don't think I could even stand the heat they put up with.
I see people digging ditches or laying tar or collecting neighbourhood trash, and I partake of the benefits of those jobs, without feeling guilty about doing so, and you probably do too. And those are dangerous jobs; "Highway deaths accounted for 20 percent of the 6588 fatal work injuries." Or retail, who's never worked in a c-store, but has taken advantage of their conveniences? "31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year" http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm

Those "poor saps" who have gone through two deployments--every one of them--has volunteered. Many of them have volunteered after 9/11, or after the war on Iraq started. Your calling them 'poor saps' for doing what they chose to do, and doing what most people would assume they might have to do, is insulting. Many of them [no, not all] volunteered again *knowing* they'd be send back to the forefront. Those people deserve your admiration, not your pity.

There's lots of 'free riders', and people who pay but don't partake, in society. You've got your welfare abusers [not all welfare recipients, of course]; virtually any homeowner without kids, or who homeschools, doesn't use the education he's paying for; etc. And I have no choice about the thousands of dollars I pay in property or sales or income taxes, and where it goes--to public transportation I don't use, to museums I don't go to in states I've never been to, etc.
And one can participate without being on the front lines. To exaggerate absurdly, if *everyone* served on the front line, how would they get supplies? How would we assist those still here who need help? What would happen to the children and the economy at home? Our economy is more varied than it was during WWII, so we don't need to do the "Rosie the Riveter" thing, but even apart from logistically, people are needed to do other things than fight on the front line. If every non-serving citizen personally thanked a serviceperson, I think even that would help the effort. But every single person fighting in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere, had to voluntarily make a choice that could put him there, and the majority of Congress voted for it as well. If no one volunteered, then there would be two main options: either start a draft [which i don't think would be supported especially for the reasoning Rangel uses], or be more conservative with the usage of military action. It would be, to some extent, self limiting.
Shared goals/benefits...Hmm...Virtually every citizen pays taxes. Pharma and medical companies research drugs and treatments, in an attempt to improve people's lives, for everything from cancer/AIDS to hair loss. They research in part to help people, but also in part of large profits to the company and people who can help solve those problems. I think most people would agree that anti-HIV or cancer drugs/treatments would be beneficial to the society are large, along with treatments for other ailments. Private companies have a vested interested in creating a solution quickly and efficiently, due in part to that profit motive, where a government-funded organization has a vested interested in dragging it out to keep receiving grant money. So using the shared costs/benefits argument, the federal government should use more of our tax dollar to incentivize private companies to research treatments for some of these debilitating diseases--perhaps not an ongoing grant, maybe an initial investment outlay to get things started, and a very large one-time monetary prize going to the company that creates a treatment fitting certain criteria. This would definitely fall under the shared costs/shared benefits concept, I believe. Not everyone can be a biochemist, but everyone could toss, oh, 5 grand into the pot via their taxation.
I don't see how the abortion example is 'absurd'. Using the same logic as has been espoused re: military, if someone supports abortion, they should be willing to have one [where physically possible, of course--and a side point--if one of pro-abortion women's arguments is 'hands off my body', and 'you can't have the baby so you can't make me keep it', that a man's argument against abortion is irrelevant, doesn't that imply a man's argument *for* abortion is equally irrelevant?]. If someone isn't willing to have an abortion themselves, why do they support it for others? And if it's shared social benefits that are relevant, then more people should be *against* abortion--every aborted fetus is a possible future servicemember fighting for freedom, or a future social security contributor, or a future scientist or social activist or doctor who will contribute to the community, state, or country; and on a smaller scale, a possible future mom or dad, or uncle or aunt, or son or daughter to love and be loved, improving that smaller community, the benefits of which would emanate out to the community at large.
Not to get too far off topic on abortion specifically.
OK, remove Pinochet, I'll admit I namedropped him just because he's been in the headlines recently.
I don't listen to the radio, but I'll check out the Weekly Standard. There's a nice blogpost there about a military plan to deliver 150 tons of food and supplies to flooded Kenya. Thanks for the tip.
 
I'm not sure you understand what I meant by a "free rider," save for your welfare example. All your other examples are situations that people pay into, but do not use, services. OTOH, a free rider would be the welfare recipient who does not seek out employment, or a means of getting off welfare; a free rider would be someone who will let the civil rights activists do the legwork for them in the mid-20th century, while they surely benefited from the civil rights act of 1964. A free rider is simply a person who does not participate in an action (let's say someone who dodges their tax obligations, rather than pays them, as in your example), but who drives on streets, sends their children to public schools, calls for first responders in the case of an emergency, and does all sorts of things that utilize what this person has not, in the slightest, paid for. (it's too clean an example, as no person can exist without paying, say, sales tax, but humor me for a moment).

Before I forget, the 75% whites KIA statistic, if true, does nothing to bolster your cause, given that whites are over 80% of the US population. It suggests, in fact, that minorities (we assume the other 25% KIA, and that depends on how they identify Latinos) are disproportionately represented in either (1) "front lines," or (2) the military in general.

Now, I agree that a war effort is not only the military effort, but culling up Rosie the Riveter is an interesting example. We are by no means in that sort of society (where we are conserving copper - though its price has gone through the fucking roof lately, increasing thefts of scrap - rationing meals, carpooling to conserve on fuel). We are urged, in fact, to avoid that sort of conservation: drive where you want, buy what you want, eat what you want, consume all you can. The very act of buying and consuming has become, in our collective view, the ultimate act of showing off our freedom. Gluttony is an art form, very contrary to WWII. We conserve nothing.

Moreover, as for Rosie, she's not needed. We have no draft, so we have plenty of able-age men working right at home. You're one, I'm one, dennis_t is one. None of us fall outside of that criteria (especially if you consider the expanded age criteria for those called up from the Army reserves). We aren't training otherwise unskilled workers to build things for us. We are going about our lives as normally as we can, and that defines us right now.

That's a crucial point, because the anger of those on the left who too often resort to the polemic "chickenhawk" do have a valid point, in my view. It's not so much that "if you support the war, you should be over there," though that's not necessarily untrue. IMO, the idea is more that those supporting the war are blinding themselves to the cost of the war relative to what we were told, the duration of the war relative to what we were told, the rationale for war relative to what we were told, the plans for rebuilding Iraq and coming home relative to what we were told, the infighting and religiously-motivated violence relative to what we were told (Saddam's regime is the sole foundation of violence and hatred in Iraq), ad nauseum (I could go on for quite some time).

In the end, it doesn't bother me if you stay home, seeing as how I'm not fighting in Afghanistan (I'm one of the few "let's hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, and then get back to re-overthrowing the taliban, finished up with genuine postwar rebuilding in Afghanistan, goddammit" Democrats). But, to think that the group of people who have, from top to bottom, made Iraq a colossal failure, should be in control of the military, and that the reorganization plans of someone like John Murtha are to be fully discredited based on nothing more than ad hominem discourse, completely ignoring the brilliance of such a plan...that is really fucking frustrating.

It's not that you aren't fighting there, it's that you're telling us to wait for people who have let you, and the United States, down time and time and time again since March of 2003, to do the good job you expect them to do.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
I see people digging ditches or laying tar or collecting neighbourhood trash, and I partake of the benefits of those jobs, without feeling guilty about doing so, and you probably do too. And those are dangerous jobs; "Highway deaths accounted for 20 percent of the 6588 fatal work injuries." Or retail, who's never worked in a c-store, but has taken advantage of their conveniences? "31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year" http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm

Those "poor saps" who have gone through two deployments--every one of them--has volunteered. Many of them have volunteered after 9/11, or after the war on Iraq started. Your calling them 'poor saps' for doing what they chose to do, and doing what most people would assume they might have to do, is insulting. Many of them [no, not all] volunteered again *knowing* they'd be send back to the forefront. Those people deserve your admiration, not your pity.[/QUOTE]

I think you mistake admiration for pity. I admire the folks who've volunteered for the military so much that I don't want to place their lives on the line without some heavy thought done regarding just what they'll be fighting for, how they'll win and when they'll be coming home. That sort of thought did not occur before sending soldiers into Iraq. If it had, we'd be done or at least have a clear path forward.

And I suppose that's where I have a problem with people who support the war and then refuse to volunteer themselves, because in the end they are treating our brave military as expendable bodies. You say it's okay to send them for deployment after deployment because they volunteered? I say that's akin to having a beloved car and refusing to change the oil. The machine will wear down and fall apart if it's not cared for, and I don't see too many war supporters willing to care for our military machine by infusing it with new blood and new volunteers.

Re: your highway worker or trash collector analogy, really, how fatuous can you be? Those might be dangerous jobs, but I very much doubt either career has to worry much about snipers or suicide bombers. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
The difference between abortion, law enforcement, highway jobs etc and military service is that no one has ever, or will ever, try to force someone into any of the former (in this country in the foreseeable future at least). The military has a history of various forms of conscription and even has a system in place, the selective service, to quickly return to it. Add to that the fact that the military is stretched, the likely solution by the president will be to stay forever or even increase troop strength, invade Iran and or North Korea on top of that and that recruitment, while passing goals, is doing so barely and it seems likely that the military will heed calls to increase its size further straining its recruiting efforts. It becomes obvious that a draft is a real possibility, unlike an abortion draft or garbage man draft, which would only happen if they instituted the universal service Charlie Rangel has proposed and they and had nowhere else to put the leftover men and women.

What I mean by this is that by refusing to join a cause you believe in you may be forcing men, and possibly women, to choose between being a slave to a cause they don't believe in or even find immoral or spending a significant time in jail, on the run or in exile (though I know of no country that will except those of us who will refuse to join as Canada did in the 60's). I believe that war is inherently immoral and that no one should have to go (even those who support this war and deserve an eye opener) especially when it is a war of choice and agression against a country that was no threat to us.

As for the other person who stated that we all benefit from military protection so we should all have a part, that is only valid if you accept that the "protection" provided for us is necessary. I could say I had a vision that a male child born would cause the end of the world so for "the greater good" I must force people chosen at random to kill all male babies. You would probably find this both stupid, as you don't believe that I can predict the future, and immoral as killing innocent babies is inherently wrong even if it does prevent a catastrophe. I and many others feel the same way about this war in Iraq, and just about any war. The need for it is based on a lie and to my mind is very stupid and the act of fighting it and killing many innocent people is wrong even if it did lead to "a greater good".

As for what I would do if there were some sort of draft that affected me (I'm older than the traditional draft age but not Rangels uberdraft) I would have to choose jail, exile or a life on the run. I place no faith in the provisions for objectors as the draft board is made up of community volunteers who probably are so pro-military as to be absurd and they have a quota of people to induct and usually favor those with religious not moral objections. This is the equivalent in terms of justice to an accused Muslim rapist being tried with a jury of fundamentalist Christian rape victims who volunteered to be on the jury AND who must convict a certain number of people per month. As to those who think people like myself are cowards I will tell you this, based on my beliefs, if I ever join this war effort under coercion I could then be rightfully called a coward since I will have betrayed everything I believe in to avoid punishment.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']To serve in the military, all you need to do is wipe the cheetos dust off your fingers and hoist your fat ass down to the nearest recruiting station. They would love to have you, so that some poor sap who's already been through two deployments doesn't have to have a third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.[/quote]

Clearly you know little to nothing about requirements for military service.

[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, incentives like the GI Bill aren't doing much to "rope in rich white kids."[/quote]

Perhaps not, but have you seen the data showing that the military is made up of, on average, people with higher economic and education levels now than it was pre-9/11? The facts just fly in the face of Rangel's curious "reasoning."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top