Posted on 11/22/2006 5:27:30 AM PST by kellynla
The question of whether we need a universal military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of young men and women in harm's way in Iraq. As long as Americans are being shipped off to war, then everyone should be vulnerable, not just those who, because of economic circumstances, are attracted by lucrative enlistment bonuses and educational incentives. Even before the first bomb was dropped, before the first American casualty, I have opposed the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that decision-makers would never have supported the invasion if more of them had family members in line for deployment.
Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders. So far, more than 2,800 have died and 21,000 have been wounded. They are our unrecognized American heroes.
The great majority of people bearing arms for this country in Iraq are from the poorer communities in our inner cities and rural areas, places where enlistment bonuses are up to $40,000 and thousands in educational benefits are very attractive. For people who have college as an option, those incentives - at the risk to one's life - don't mean a thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Thank you. It could have been better, but I accept graciously and humbly.
I'm beginning to get a Johnny Carson moment, "...and the answer is", that there are too many poor uneducated jackasses running loose in Charlies district. the only way to get them a leg up is to open the floodgate via Charlie's draft by lowering the entrance standards to perps, addicts, crooks, felons, ex cons, flotsam, jetsam, and jackass.
The only problem that Charlie hasn't apparently thought of, is when all the riff raff are drafted, there won't be anyone left in the district that will vote for him. Explain to me how Mr Rangel is able to convince anyone of sound mind to actually cast a vote for him? Apparently the (self censored) of his skin matters more than the stuff between his ears.
Frigen Rangel is an *sshole. I don't know how else to responed.
Speaking of nonsense.
Nixon was many things but he wasn't clairvoyant.
However, being open-minded, I'd be happy to read anything where Nixon says he approved of doing away with the draft in an attempt to save himself.
BTW, the SSS is anything but an inefficient institution. It provided the US with the great generations of soldiers who fought WWI, II, Korea, and the Cold War - - most of the time lead by great leaders. It also provided a great generation of soldiers for Vietnam, lead by a corrupt leader - - LBJ.
Hypothetical question for you and anyone else who is still blinded by the rhetoric of Vietnam:
Had President Bush called for, received and signed a Universal Service Bill from congress before the end of Sept 01, would it have been used for the purposes of conscription by now?
A draft would insure a larger portion of the population would be in the military, which would include the dissenters and malcontents.
The soldiers I've spoken to tell me a draft would ruin the military, and they only want someone next to them who feels the same as they do about the mission.
The military today is a cross-section of American society.
I've met soldiers from Boston, MA. and London KY., New Jersey and Colorado, Texas and New York.
They are some of the smartest, dedicated, driven, partying people you could imagine.
Just like most of us
I didn't think that statment was true. I understood it the way you said.
MSM Killing Military Recruiting
With the talk of Charlie Rangel’s second try to get the draft reinstated, it is interesting to take a look at how leftists are attempting to destroy our military and one of the ways the left is trying to undermine our military is by attacking its recruiting base in high schools across the country. Activists are trying to persuade kids of military recruitment age to "opt out" from allowing their schools to provide the student's public information to military sources.
The anti-military left has also found a constant assistant in the MSM toward this goal. Every few months the MSM comes out with articles highlighting military recruiting and invariably they also give free publicity to the anti-ilitary groups trying to stop recruiting.
For example, a recent USA Today report, titled Some opt out of military options, introduces us to a school in northern Illinois where a large number of parents, totaling about half the class, have signed forms to stop the school from sending the military their info -- a trend that has grown there since at least 2004.
USA Today helpfully supplies a graphic showing the "Opt out" split in the school body. 2004 saw 2,126 opt outers in a student body of 4,505. 2,802 of 4,573 in 2005 and 2,920 out of 4,472 this school year. This stat shows a pretty steady growth toward the anti-military position.
It almost mirrors the voting trend north of Chicago in Lake County, Illinois, where the school is located.
Lincolnshire, Illinois, a northern suburb of the city of Chicago, is in Lake county. It broke close to even in the 2004 election with 50% going for Bush and 48% going for Kerry. And, while they voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Barack Obama in 2004, the rest of the votes were weighted Republican at least since the 2000 general election. But in this 2006 cycle, the GOP took a hit with Democratic votes gaining for most of the top offices, as it did in many areas of the country.
But, what the USA Today article proves most clearly, is that the left is doing what it does best; organize. And they are organizing in an effort to undermine the US military. The article covers several organizations that have organized to fight Military recruiters from having access to school records.
Even cities have taken up the anti-military cause. The school board in San Francisco has recently banned the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps from operating in city high schools, despite complaints from students, over the “don’t ask, don't tell” that supposedly discriminates against gays. School board member, Eric Mar, was quoted as saying "…in many ways, we're preventing military values on students at the high-school level.”
The reason I use this article as an example, though, is in the unusual aspect of it. It gives both sides of the argument where few others do. This article gives space to military spokesmen and gives some info to mitigate the attacks by the anti-military left. The most salient points being that the military isn't asking for any more information than colleges and Universities get from schools and that the military can get the student's info from other sources quite legally, anyway.
Still, we get a pretty detailed listing of several of the anti-military groups formed to mount an attack on the US military's ability to recruit in schools. In that USA Today helps the anti-military as much as possible.
As I said, that mirrors the common drift of most of the stories on the issue of recruiting. A quick perusal of some of the stories over the last couple of years -- since the war in Iraq started -- on military recruiting shows a constant drumbeat against the military. Whether it be a dour report on the military missing its goals or the resistance being mounted in schools to disrupt military recruit efforts, these stories constantly show a heavy bias against the military.
A few examples:
A writer from the Portland Oregonian gins up a tale about how military recruiter's misconduct " is a growing national problem as the military faces increasing pressure to hit recruiting targets during an unpopular war." ( a story the subject of which that I proved to be pure hyperbole since the stats show an extremely low number of such cases.US Army Recruiters' 'Misconduct' Over Reported By Media )
The San Francisco Chronicle delighted in reporting that the "U.S. is recruiting misfits for army Felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks".
A2005 story informs us that the army is having trouble because "Parents can opt to deny this information to recruiters, and antiwar groups are mounting a national effort to encourage them to do so."
Then there was the 2004 PBS story that highlighted the work of "the head of a local San Diego peace group which has serious problems with military recruitment at high schools."
In 2002, Mother Jones Magazine complained that military recruiters access to students "undercuts the authority of some local school districts, including San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, that have barred recruiters from schools on the grounds that the military discriminates against gays and lesbians."
In any case, the inference is clear. The stories show a mounting effort to undermine the US military's recruitment efforts. Sadly, in this time of mounting security risks, one of the most threatening things that recruiters face seem not to be the prospect of new recruits being sent into combat, but teachers and unpatriotic parents telling their kids they don't have any duty to their country.
We have heard the sobriquet of "Greatest Generation" bestowed upon those who fought WWII. One wonders what title these kinds of people might be saddled with in the decades to come? Perhaps the "Weakest Generation"? And, it would not be the mantle given to the youngsters who now serve, but their parent's generation, instead.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?p=1440
I wonder...was Charlie a draftee? Probably was. So, what was his full experience in the Army?
Is this an effort to subject everybody's children to some bitter experience he had to endure? In other words, is this an exercise in "get evenism"?
Unless this effort is psychologically driven, there is precious little sense in it -- either politically, socially or militarily.
Wow....real educational benefits, and 40,000 dollars to enlist.
.....and the Democrat benefits are just smokin'; continued residence in the 'hood, lack of self respect, as well as continued employment at the Democrat feeding trough.
$40,000 to enlist?.....boy did I need a better agent when I enlisted; oh wait there was that thing called serving the country that rendered it a moot point.
Oh, horse poop. Wrangle knows that the political class will find ways to exempt their children from any draft, if they so choose. He doesn't have the spine to assure otherwise, and neither do most other pols.
But, you can't criticize Chuckie. He served.
Thanks for the response. I guess I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
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.