Black Group Opposes Racially Divisive Plan to Reinstate Military Draft

Project 21 ^ | 1.24.03 | David Almasi

[mrustow]

I only want people serving in Our military to be serving because they want to serve Our Country.

Without a constant inflow and outflow of (otherwise) civilians in the military we run the real danger of a standing army with more loyalty to itself than to the people. IMO, a profesesional army is not a good thing.

Until about a month ago, most conservatives celebrated WWII's conscripted "citizen soldiers." Then Rangel tried his maneuver, and all of a sudden, the GOP talking points changed.

[pariah]

Rangel's proposal would require all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform military service. Those who do not qualify for the military would perform community service.

Top Ten Reasons Rangel (and other liberals) Want to Bring Back the Draft:

1) Promotes the herd mentality among young people (a continuation of the 12 years of institutionalization in the public school system).
2) Replaces the spirit of volunteerism, opportunity and patriotism with compulsory service to the gov't (a liberals's dream!)
3) Allows the gov't to register and track every male (females too?) and to manipulate all young adults with the promise of civilian alternative service or an exemption.
4) Creates a vast new gov't bureaucracy with the 'universal civilian service' component. All Americans would begin their careers working for the govt' for 2 or 3 years.
5) Promotes the myth of equal treatment yet creates a system inevitably rife with unequal treatment and corruption, exemptions and ruses. Bound to create more hostility between races and income groups.
6> Fans the flames of anti-war feeling, by threatening compulsory service for those opposed to war or a particular war (whether by sincere conscience or because they are &*%##!!* commies!)
7) Makes local Congressmen (like Rep. Rangel) more powerful, as they can barter cushy civilian sector service jobs for sons and daughters of their friends/contributors.
8> Our military is currently based on professionalism -- starting only with the most motivated (volunteers), then paring this group down to those most phsically and mentally fit for the toughest combat assignments. A universal draft would stand this policy on its head.
9) Chelsea could launch her public service career by serving as head of the new CCAHCAMLOTSMG (Civilian Corps for the Abatement of Hate Crimes and Monitoring of Language Offensive To Selected Minority Groups). She'll get full military rank, live Sgt. Shriver, that other Kennedy friend.
10) It would bring back the 60's!! (Where'd I put my green tambourine, dude?)

[hellinahandcart]

A local LP group invited me to a coalition against the war and for protection of constitutional freedoms. No LP types were there

Let me guess, Libertarians for Peace?

[hellinahandcart]

I only ask because I read on DC Indymedia that their founder, Carol Moore, was marching with the ANSWER and NION crowd last Saturday.

[Trueblackman]

Only real AB's work on the flight deck....ABH-3 USS Independence CV-62 and USS George Washington CVN-73.

[WaterDragon]

VERY wise comments by the military folk in the article! With men like this in the military, we are well-defended! God bless each of them.

[templar]

Re #19: Well, I started to hit the abuse button for this one. Then I thought .... Why not just leave it so everyone can see exactly what you are! You just shine forth like a beacon in the night don't you?

BTW, your home page sure doesn't give any indication of what you believe or how you've been 'defending the constitution. Not very proud of it?

[Taxman]

LOL! Your wife just said the magic word(s).

The good news is the duck flew down when she said the magic words. The bad news is that the duck has no $100 bill! The duck is stone cold broke.

(Courtesy of Groucho Marx & "You Bet Your Life.")

[Taxman]

Nope. LBJ started a program that allowed (nee "encouraged") people with criminal records, no high school education and low test scores to enter the Military -- called "Group IV" I think -- and also allowed draftees in the Navy in 1969 - 1972 time period.

We got some real losers who became big trouble makers -- recall the "race riots" in the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation in 1972/73?

Big mistake, because the boot camps were not allowed or encouraged to weed these bad dudes out of the service. They wound up in the Fleet, and created a lot of havoc.

Many of those who made it through boot camp subsequently wound up in the brig, or got "less than honorable" discharges" as a result of their inability to get along with their shipmates. Bad scene all the way around.

Robert Heinlein advanced a theory that in order to vote, a citizen had to have served in the Military. That is a concept worth exploring, IMHO. I would add that in addition to Military Service, certain other "public service" jobs could be added to Military Service to qualify for voting privileges. HST, being a bureaucrat would not be one of the "other" qualifying public service jobs.

Back to my original point: I think four to six months at MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island would be a good experience for all 18 year olds. The sort of disciplined approach to their duties the US Marines instill in their young men and women would result in a net benefit to the society.

But that is just my humble opinion.

[Taxman]

LOL!

In the Kitty Hawk, we did a lot of "cross training." Hangar Deck yellow shirts and blue shirts worked the Flight Deck and vice versa. Worked out very well, and was a popular program. V-1 and V-3 worked together much better as a result of that cross-training.

But, the FRiendly rivalry was still there!

Thank you for your service.

[templar]

Nope. LBJ started a program that allowed (nee "encouraged") people with criminal records, no high school education and low test scores to enter the Military -- called "Group IV" I think -- and also allowed draftees in the Navy in 1969 - 1972 time period.

I was totally unaware of the draftees. The lax rules allowing criminals and such to serve was, IMO, a way to make up for the loss of draft pool that the student deferments (of the influential class) caused. A draft should be universal, not selective, to be effective. Even most of the 'physically unfit' should be requried to serve (one of my high schools football stars, an all around athlete, was considered physically unfit and got a 4F).

Back to my original point: I think four to six months at MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island would be a good experience for all 18 year olds.

I agree about universal military training for all men in the country. It would, IMO, cure most of the social woes we seem to be suffering. I'm not sure the Marines should have to put up with them though. They're a pretty exclusive service. The general population mixing with the Marines would quite likely end up lowreing the standards of that service.

[Defender2]

No. actually since the draft had ended illegal drug use in the military has reached an all time low. Also alchohol abuse has steadily declined. And we don't have to worry about people who side with our enemies.

[Taxman]

LBJ was concerned about "social justice" and the underclass -- he thought that by "giving them a chance" in the military, they might become productive citizens, and perhaps some did. In the meantime, they were a major problem, and the program was terminted after a couple of years.

The idea is not for the 18 yr olds to serve in the US Marines, the idea is that boot camp would "square them away," provide a frame of reference, if you will, for success in life.

And, I by no means think that everybody should be a Marine -- or that the Marine Corps wants everybody. The Marine Corps is very selective, and those who excell in the Boot Camp, under my scenario, would be able to choose, if they desire, to go into the Marine Corps. I.e., it would be a competitive selection process -- for all branches of the service and the equivalent civilian substitutes for Military Service.

The Marine Corps would just be the basic training ground for all services and their civilian counterparts. Would probably have to convert the other service boot camps to a PI likeness, but that would not be a huge problem.

Would take a set of large cojones, though, by a lot of military warriors and civilan bureaucrats.

Man and women, BTW, should go. The Marines segregate men and women in training -- they do not mix until they get to their specialized training schools or to their final unit.

[mrustow]

"Sgt. Shriver"

LOL. BTW, how did we ever win WWI & WWII, with a lousy conscript military?

[Defender2]

#27 I'm way to busy to fancy up my page. I've been defending
the constitution for a long time. I just do not want anyone in our military that does not want to be in our military. It helps keep the Benedict Arnold's and John Walkers, Hanoi Jane's, and Tokyo Rose's out of Our Military. Race does not have a place in my argument, so please do not try to make it one. I serve with people of many backgrounds. The one thing that the majority of us share is that we want to Defend Our Country! I merely argue that I would rather have people who honestly want to defend Our Country other than people who do not!!!! And all of us who serve (at least the ones that I serve with) believe in FREEDOM!!!!

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

What is YOUR problem? Anyone who has an opinion that you don't like, you push the abuse button? Are we all supposed to march in lock-step with the same opinion? Grow up!

[templar]

What is YOUR problem?

My problem is people who make personal attacks and flames instead of an intelligent reply, people who seem to do nothing except call names and make slanders against myself (or anyone else) who expresses an opinion they disagree with. I feel this happened in post #19 (I assume that you are inteligent enough to have read the string of posts). Yes, I do have a problem with those who make personal slanders against the messenger when they cannot reply intelligently to the message. This is, of course, exactly the favorite tactic of liberals that most of us like to criticize so much. Particularly when that message was deliberately expressed as a personal opinion, not as some kind of fact. Might I remind you that the posting guidlines explicitly state "...but refrain from abusive attacks, engaging in senseless flame wars, ..." which is what If find " I don't have to take that cr*p from some snivelling liberal/socialist/communist/terrorist like possibly you!!!! " to be. I might add that those would also be legally considered as 'fighting words' if expresssed in person.

If you don't like what I say then maybe you should consider the spirit of the posts in #32 & #35 by Defender2 (both reasoned and acceptable disagreement with my opinion which does not attack me personally or call me any deragotory terms) and his #19 (which can hardly be viewed as anything but an unwarranted personal attack and a flame). IMO, Defender2 redeemed himself well in both #32 & #35, not at all like the attack in #19.

Are we all supposed to march in lock-step with the same opinion?

Well, not IMO, but it seems to be what you are demanding here. In lockstep with your opinion of course.

[Defender2]

A good night's sleep does do wonders. Sorry that I was gruff. I was tired last night and got in an argument with you at the wrong time (It was late). Actually at the time, I expected my remark to be pulled. At least you know a little of what I really don't like(Socialists/Communists/Terrorists). I do wish you well, templar, carry on!!!!:-) And in a positive lightside I do like to see differences of opinion. None of us are right all the time and none of us are wrong all the time. We just have to try to do the right things. Best Regards to you both. D2

[templar]

I was tired last night and got in an argument with you at the wrong time (It was late). Actually at the time, I expected my remark to be pulled.

Happens to the best of us. Your later posts spoke well of you. Best wishes.

[Defender2]

Best wishes!:-)