Posted on 08/04/2002 3:08:09 PM PDT by The Duke
Lately, even as I hear the war drums incessantly beating with regard to Iraq, I've heard numerous radio ads reminding all "young men" that registration for "selective service" is "the law".
Could it possibly be that a ressurection of the draft is being contemplated? And if so will this draft be "selective" in the sense that it won't "select" the children of our national leaders(?) (as apparently was the case with Vietnam?)
My own three boys are a few years from being eligable for such a draft, and I've shared with them my belief that the integrity of our leadership (Democrat and Republican alike) is highly suspect. I've also shared with them that the eight years prior to the current administration was proof that one can dodge the draft and even get elected President.
I would like to know what other Freepers think of the prospect of resurrecting the draft?
I also taught them not to be judgmental when they don't know much about a person. Whoever hatched you should have done the same thing.
Are you sure you want to go there?
There ought to be certain things that everybody (or at least the vast majority of people) can agree go beyond parental rights. Your view would suggest we should not have any laws because they will be passed and enforced by a government, and you don't trust government. There is always a balance between opposing absolutes, parental rights and the welfare of children, society and the individual, statism and anarchy. Drawing those lines is what politics (and really civilization) is all about.
Considering you've given absolutely NO evidence to support your conclusion, I think it's just a product of unhealthy cynicism and a crummy outlook.
Personally, I think the politicans and their corrupt crony media should go fight their own war against Saddam Hussein, because the only words I've heard on the subject have for the past ten years been coming only from the mouths of fools and liars.
While it seems I've spent the last 6 months disagreeing with President Bush more than agreeing with him, to call him a fool and a liar is vile.
And why don't you ask the men in uniform about Iraq? After all, they VOLUNTEERED.
The VAST majority I've spoken with are itching to get to work. And from what I understand, reenlistments are very high. Does anyone have any numbers on that?
My view is that when you use force and violate other's rights, thats where the government steps in, otherwise the government has no business stepping in. Government's job should be to protect rights, not be a nanny state. As soon as you open a crack on the nanny state box for something you think should be enforced, something else will come up that you dislike and will be enforced on you and your children(ex: Homosexuality is ok, premarital sex is ok, abortion is ok, Christianity is bigotry, spanking your chidren is immoral, etc etc)
This is the first time you've noticed? Those ads have been on the radio for decades.
I wasn't aware that I had presented any "conclusions" - my intent was to solicit discussion - and attempt which seems to have been successful.
While it seems I've spent the last 6 months disagreeing with President Bush more than agreeing with him, to call him a fool and a liar is vile.
I didn't say President Bush was a fool. In fact, I wouldn't have called "president" Clinton a fool either.
Now, as far as "liar" goes - all I can say is that both are politicians.
The VAST majority I've spoken with are itching to get to work. And from what I understand, reenlistments are very high. Does anyone have any numbers on that?
I would suggest that you don't think of a war with Iraq as necessarily being conveniently located "over there". One might do well to anticipate, for example, entire US cities quaranteened due to biowarfare within our own borders. In fact, the sailors at sea might be the lucky ones.
We ain't living in Kansas no more Dorothy, and try as you might, clicking those ruby red slippers together ain't gonna help once certain genies are out of the bottle.
The draft will not be returned but maybe your statement about those in power requires a bit of a re-think. Congress is chocked full of military vets. Many highly decorated. Bush the 1st was a WW2 fighter pilot that was shot down on a combat mission. Bob Dole almost died of his injuries and still has the use of only one arm. You may have let your cynicism get in the way of fairness.
Not always true. John F. Kennedy is one counterexample. His father wasnt' an elected politician, but he owned plenty of them. JFK's brother was killed in WW-II. Similary the son of President Teddy Roosevelt was the first general on the beach in the first wave no less, on D-Day in Normandy. He and his two brothers fought in WW-I. The youngest one, Quentin, was killed in the war. His son, named after his brother, was also in action elsewhere in Normandy on D-Day, this source claims they were the only father-son pair in action that day in Normandy. Of course all of them, in addition to being sons or grandsons of President Teddy, where also part of the extended family of both the then sitting President (Franklin) Roosevelt (although the two branches of the family were politically opposed) and of the First Lady, who was also a Roosevelt and to whom they were even more closely related. Teddy Jr. died of a heart attack a few days after D-Day. He was not a career officer, but rather, horrors, a politician (for the most part). The article above also mentions the son of President Hayes getting the medal of honor during the Phillipine insurrection, long after his father was out of office and dead. Franklin's own son, James, went on active duty as a captain in the United States Marine Corps in November 1940; promoted to colonel April 13, 1944, and served in the Pacific Theater; released from active duty in August 1945. Another son, Franklin D. Jr, was called from the Naval Reserve on March 13, 1941, (having gotten his law degree in 1940) to active duty as an ensign in the United States Navy and served in North Africa, Europe, and the Pacific; discharged from active duty in January 1946; awarded the Purple Heart Medal and the Silver Star. Elliot and John were also in uniform during the war and before US entry.
(Incidently the FDR offspring were a marrying bunch Anna was married three times, Elliot and James 5 times each and John twice.
Even in England, long standing tradition, probably to be broken by the current generation, is that future Kings of England serve in the armed forces. Even those Princes not next in line usually served.
Some politicians have always been willing to send other peoples kids off to fight, but there is a counter tradition of uniformed service to country, by the sons of elite as well as the sons of the more humble members of society. When that tradition dies, the country is in trouble. Come to think about it, the Sinkmeister was very much an execption in being a President with no personal military service of any sort. I think you have to go back to FDR, and even he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WW-I.
I don't like it.
If young boys or men want to go to the Military, then, Great!
Ooops! Sorry! And again: On the one hand, I completely agree with you! Everyone should put in their time in service to this nation. This country needs a reawakening of sorts...of course, in my opinion. However, comma...I see these two goonies and wonder how in the hell-o we could ever use them!
You are full of shit. Or yourself. Either way it stinks.
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.