Posted on 07/26/2012 12:57:50 AM PDT by robowombat
That's absolute crap. They've been pushing this agenda for DECADES - since the 80's. As for volunteering now, under the current "leadership" - I could see thinking twice before volunteering for multiple tours of Afghanistan with no clear objective and ridiculous rules of engagement.
They only reason they had success in pushing it is because there were not enough males showing up to serve. This is not unusual, the Romans had the same problem. The average citizen became divorced from the idea of participating in the national defense. There are FAR more John Sununu’s in the GOP than there are Duncan Hunters. Go to a YR meeting and try to find a veteran.
They've had "success" pushing it because liberal politicians are jamming it down the the military's throat. It's a top-down thing. All the military can do is salute and say "yes, sir." If there were a true lack of manpower in the combat arms, there's a ready-made solution, it's called "the draft."
I don't look to the Young Republicans as a gauge of anything relevant to the military. Try finding a veteran in Congress or the Senate.
We can’t have a military draft; it would mean the Sununu and Romney boys would have to serve in uniform. Across the board, the drive to put women in the miltary was spurred by the unwillingness of large segements of our young males to serve in the military.
You are demonstrably wrong, but I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this anytime soon.
Humor me and demonstrate it. What percentage of the young men at the high school nearest you were volunteering in any capacity to serve their country in uniform, in any capacity among the last graduating class? How many young males graduating from the Citadel, Norwich or VMI actually went on to ANY type of military service? How does that compare with the number in 1955 or 1965? We don’t need to see eye to eye, the evidence is here for anybody to examine for themselves. You could always ask Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Mike Lee or Marco Rubio what it was they were doing that prevented them from serving, even if only a six year tour in the reserves. The answer is wasn’t important enough for them to do.
I’d say both, although the Romney family is only the most prominent current examples. When was the last Burr, Reagan, Goldwater, Helms or Buckley to serve in uniform? There are some prominent good examples but largely within the GOP the Limp-Richards rule and the Democrats are even worse.
You mean during the draft? I suppose it doesn't compare at all. Many "volunteers" during the draft did so because it gave them a little more control over the branch of service and occupational specialty than if they were drafted, so it doesn't compare to what is going on now with the all-volunteer force. Without the threat of the draft, would the volunteers have volunteered?
Look, your entire premise is ridiculous. I don't believe the only way you can serve your country, or demonstrate your patriotism, is by enlisting, or that you can gauge the quality of our young men by the number of enlistees. The young men of this current generation are the ones who are volunteering to fill the ranks of the combat arms right now - even with a mongoloid president and a war with stupid rules of engagement.
Because of the Cold War, the post-WWII history of the U.S. Armed Forces is an aberration from the rest of our history. For most of our history we've had a tiny military - the percentage of veterans to general population has always been relatively small. In fact, post-Civil War and post- WWI, there were those who looked down on the career military as people who "couldn't make it" in the civilian world. People were not flocking to enlist in 1873 or 1925. So I'm not surprised that we don't have people flooding the recruiting offices when we have such shitty leadership and such pointless missions. When you compound that with political correctness and the gay agenda, I'm surprised anyone is volunteering at all.
Jimmy Carter presided over the "hollow army;" Reagan presided over a juggernaut. People didn't suddenly become more patriotic and self-sacrificing between 1975 and 1988 - the difference was leadership and mission. If you replace obama with someone who has a clue, then you will see an increase in volunteers; but why on earth would you raise your right hand now with the knowledge that your sacrifices will be utterly squandered and completely unappreciated?
Of course during the draft, and afterwards. Certainly it reflects poorly on the paucity of individual males volunteering to serve in any capacity. What are they thinking as young women their age deploy for the third and fourth times. Yes, they have the right to pass on service in uniform. Nobody who does that should get upset when it it pointed out.
But a former 11B can get upset by your deliberate misrepresentation of the situation and your broad-brush slander of a generation of men. If your grasp of the Afghanistan "strategy" is so clear, perhaps you could explain why our young men should be flocking to sign up for multiple tours there.
Well as is always the case, they can sign up for any of a number of MOS’s. The fact is that the Romney, Sununu and Schumer males simply don’t want the discipline and sacrifice. Nothing prevented Rick Santorum or Pat Toomey from joining the USCG or PAANG Reserves, except that they were a little too good to serve in uniform. Fortunately there remain a minority of young men who view that course of action as unacceptable. The gals make up the staffing difference.
So some men are afraid of setting the right example or are they like Romney’s boys?
////////////////
Ouch! Direct hit!
Go to a GOP event and try to find a younger male who was man enough to serve in uniform. I can’t speak for Texas, but I can tell you that my experiences in Virginia, New Hampshire and Massachusetts have indicated to me most YR’s don’t have spine enough to serve in any capacity. It’s just anecdotal and I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.
///////////////////
Thank you for your post. Apologies for the tardy reply: I never noticed your reply previously.
Your observation is sound, though there are many who have served: Including my son.
But, you are correct: Too many have not served. Including Romney and his five — FIVE! — military-aged (during the past decade), Harvard-graduate, trust-fund-heir sons.
I will vote for Romney, but will not be happy with him for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.