Posted on 01/25/2003 7:05:47 PM PST by mhking
To: National Desk, National and Black Affairs Reporters
Contact: David Almasi (202) 371-1400 x106 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
For Release: January 24
A proposal by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) to reinstate a military draft is under fire from African-American conservatives affiliated with the Project 21 leadership network. Project 21 members call the Rangel proposal a blatant political maneuver meant to inject a divisive racial aspect into the debate over using military force to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"Ironic as it may sound, bringing back the draft would be a good sign for those who seek to destroy us because it would be a sign of strategic weakness," said Project 21 member Captain A.A. Warthen, an active-duty U.S. Marine. "The Rangel proposal ignores the obvious social attitudes that have taken place over the past 25 years with regard to public service. The young men and women serving today are the best-educated and trained generation of warriors this nation has ever produced. We are more than ready to meet the challenges that lay ahead in the defense of this nation."
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. Rangel's statement that he seeks a "more equitable representation of people making sacrifices" indicates the plan is inspired by racial politics rather than strategic need.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says of the draft, "There is no need for it at all."
Department of Defense figures dispute the claim by Rangel plan supporters that minorities would suffer a disproportionate number of frontline casualties in an Iraqi conflict. While 20 percent of soldiers are African-American, only 10.6 percent of the Army's combat infantry is black. Black personnel also are underrepresented as pilots and in high-risk commando units.
Military sociologist Charles Moskos told USA Today: "If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites." As for the class disparity, Hoover Institution research fellow Stanley Kurtz points out that liberal opposition to JROTC and ROTC presence in high schools and colleges since the Vietnam era has led to fewer college graduates considering the military as a career option.
A 1997 survey of 76,000 servicemen found that minority soldiers had an overwhelmingly positive view of race relations in the military. Over one-third believed conditions in the military were better than in the civilian world. Good race relations are an important factor in ensuring troops' combat readiness.
Project 21 member Kevin Martin, a U.S. Navy veteran, added: "Congressman Rangel has sunk to a new low in trying to say that a draft is the only way to bring equality to the military. Study after study has shown that whatever information he has is as faulty as his argument."
Project 21 has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 371-1400 x106 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's web site at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html.
-- 30 --
The ANSWER leader made it very clear that EUROPE was calling the shots. From my prior experience with the way he acted and phrased it, I got the distinct impression that his source of money obligated him to take that position.
The FEB 15 QUESTION REMAINS. The left is planning a major PR event on FEB 15. What can Bush or FR or anyone do to a) expose the way people are being manipulated in the buildup or b) upstage the event with something that will compete for the front page.
Remember when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to upstage his perjury news? Without being absurd what ideas do you have to compete for the front page?
Heinlein also had their ability to vote not start until AFTER they left the military. I like the idea too. I especially like the idea of having as many volunteers as possible going thru the military, from the viewpoint of having lots of civilians with military training. A middle class with lots of vets would be fairly stable and hard to intimidate with threats of "give us what we want or we'll riot in your neighborhoods"
That's easy. Start Gulf War II on Jan 28 during the State of the Union Address, and have it completed, with a company of marines marching thru Bagdad with Sadaam's head on a pike by Feb 14.
Now that is extremely interesting. FRom my experience with them, I would have thought North Korea was calling the shots. ;-P
The FEB 15 QUESTION REMAINS. The left is planning a major PR event on FEB 15. What can Bush or FR or anyone do to a) expose the way people are being manipulated in the buildup or b) upstage the event with something that will compete for the front page.
Oh, there are counter-rallies planned but we'll never be able to "compete for the front page" with these folks---they are just too good at creating turnout, and the press are on their side for the most part---and the White House shouldn't lower itself, that's giving them more validation than they deserve.
Talk radio just might be able to do something. I listened to the radio all day long on the Monday after the DC rally, and the hosts were FINALLY talking about what a vile bunch of commies the ANSWER crowd are. And people who had seen it in person or on C-Span were calling in, totally exasperated at the way the press had glossed over all the disturbing aspects of the whole mess in order to make it look like a bunch of mainstreamers had flooded into DC. And I also noticed the immediate defensive reaction of the left, that it was such a "diverse crowd" and "we shouldn't paint with such a broad brush". Bwaha. Must have hit a nerve or something.
If Rush and Boortz and Savage were to urge people to watch C-Span coverage of the next one (I'm positive they'll cover it, they always have so far), and enough people actually do that, the America-haters will bury themselves with their own vicious words.
And if just one of the Big Three would give them free airtime, we'd be looking at Funerally II.
I can TELL people over and over what these peaceniks are, but it's the sort of thing people have to see and hear for themselves, before they believe.
Now, all they have to do is solve the spousal murder problem.
Then he tells you he doesn't have to take that crap from a l/s/c/t like possibly you (#19) (He is justifiably irate at your insult.)
Then you say you almost hit the abuse button for #19, and you slam his homepage because it doesn't mention the Constitution, and you insinuate that he's not proud of the way he's defended the Constitution (#27). (That's your insult #2.)
Then Defender2 calmly defends himself against your charges (#35).
Then I step in and ask what is your problem, must we all march in lock-step with the same opinion, and I tell you to grow up (#36).
Then you say your problem is people who make personal attacks & flames instead of intelligent replies. You say you were called names and slandered. (Conveniently forgetting that you were the one who insulted and taunted him first.) You say his words were "fighting words". Well, I guess he could have said the same about yours, since YOU were the first one with the insults. But you were the one who acted as if YOU were insulted first. Then you attack ME, accusing me of being someone who wants people to march in lock-step with MY opinions (#37).
Well - surprise! surprise! - I didn't offer an opinion. I was merely defending Defender2. You are so wound-up, you think that anyone who disagrees with you (Defender2), or defends someone else (me), is worthy of attack or insult.
In other words, it looks like you're the only one allowed to hurl insults; then when you insult someone & they react indignantly, you become furious, and you threaten to hit the abuse button and go crying to Mama (or, in this case, JR); and when someone steps in to defend someone else against your insults, you then attack that person as well. Again, I say, grow up! Or are those fightin' words, too?
Those were popular wars. Making men enlist against their will has never been a good idea -- ie. draft riots during CW, Vietnam. WWI might have produced some domestic unrest if it had dragged on. WWII was so enthusiastically supported, I think the only reason for the draft was FDR and his overreaching Federal bureaucracy. There was no lack of volunteers. The draft helped turn a popular war (Vietnam) into an unpopular war. Finally, the military establishment itself has stated over and over that it doesn't want/need any draft. The draft constitutes involuntary servitude to the gov't and is an institution worthy of sheeple and trained monkeys.
Did I mention Iraq has a draft?
You jerk, his first reply to me was a direct challenge to a reasoned opinion I made, not a question as to its validity. I replied with a similar jab, not a direct insult. I called him no names. He responeded by calling me names. Names which are 'fighting words', a term you aparently lack the education to understand. Look it up, or get enough education to look it up if you don't have it. If you didn't read his latter posts where he admitted he expected the post to be pulled then you need to just shut up and mind your own business. If you're idiotic enough to jump into the middle of somepne elses argument your deserve to get insulted yourself, but I gave you a very reasoned and respectful reply (one that I spent about a half hour composing to explain my position well since you asked what it was). Now why don't you just go away and sharpen that pointy head of yours since it doesn't seem so sharp to me. BTW, this is a personal insult and I'm doing it privately, where it belongs, not on the open forum.
One of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use what have been called “weasel words.” When a weasel sucks eggs the meat is sucked out of the egg. If you use a “weasel word” after another there is nothing left of the other.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Speech, May 31, 1916,
St. Louis, Missouri.
Works, vol. 24 (1926).
Referring to Woodrow Wilson´s proposal for “universal voluntary military training.”
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.