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 ...
I knew he was a veteran but does anyone know in what capacity he actually served? Normally, I wouldn't be weary of someone's service but I am of his. Something that always sticks in my mind is that Congressman from Washington state that had said he was a Viet Nam vet, yet it turned out he never left California the whole time. Apparently he was a shrink on base. And that other guy Harkin who said he was an ace fighter pilot when in fact he never flew a plane in a combat mission.
Why not, exactly? I'm not sure what your point about WWI was, other than to point out that once upon a time, upper class types volunteered be officers, in order to send poor grunts charging at entrenched machine guns.
Regardless, America, 2006 is a long, long way from America, 1917. Back then, everyone knew someone affected by the war. Nowadays, outside of more conservative circles, it's pretty rare. For most of my civilian friends, I'm the only one they know that's been to Iraq, and they consider that quite a novelty. Knowing a WWI vet in 1921 wasn't considered novel in any way.
His second sentence is the clue you need to decipher where this asshole is coming from. He thinks people shouldn't have to, or have the right to, make decisions based on their own circumstances. He thinks that income inequality is wrong.
And, of course, as is evident further in the article, the man is a racist. Not a reverse racist, not a man that shouts a racial epithet in a moment of anger, not that there's anything right with that; just a virulent racist of the Hitlerian variety.
Cornbread stuffing is the only way to go. I've tried them all, and this is my considered opinion. Like with Bill Buckley, that makes it a fact. :)
Yeah well, he's still an @ss. John Kerry had three Purple Hearts, in case you didn't know.
It takes a lot of faith in what you are doing to risk your life. It takes a lot more to risk your kids.
Chairman Mao had a son, Mao Anying. After the onset of the Korea War, Mao's son went to the frontlines with the People's Volunteer Army, where he was killed by a U.S. airstrike. Mao may have been a cynical old bastard, but the loss of your eldest son hurts a proud Chinese leader on many levels.
I somehow don't see President Bush being so ready to "stay the course" or "leave that to the commanders on the ground" if Jenna or Barbra were, say, captains in an MP company. I don't say that to imply President Bush is a bad guy. I met him, briefly, while I was in the Army. He thanked me for my service, and I believe he was 100% genuine about it. It's just not the same. No one in his inner circle, except Ashcroft, I believe, had any direct blood in the fight. You can feel bad about the fears or loss of others, but it'll never really ring home until you risk or lose your own blood.
"Those who do the fighting have no choice"
Yes they do they do not have to enlist.
"Those of us who served want only those who WANT to serve with us."
I agree. What I would like to see is a period of required service to the nation, that everyone would grow up expecting, but which could take other forms than military. I think that a lot of people would want the military option if they had to do some form of service, but currently do not choose any form of service. Whether such people would meet your definition of WANTING to serve with you, I don't know.
Heard something that made me think yesterday. A local conservative talk show host was actually for the draft.
If this passes, there would be a lot of riots in the country at least.
This idiot keeps stepping into this hole and Republicans are too stupid to exploit it.
We need some geezer with horn rimmed glasses and a herringbone tweed coat in front of a camera, shaking his finger in the air and intoning solemn outrage: "Our children will not be fodder for your foreign adventures sir!"
Narrator:
"Rangel wants control of your kids, but only for a few years. He won't say what he wants it for.."
Then the camera cuts to footage of Kofi Anan saying "...the people of Sudan must understand that violence achieves nothing..."
Then cut to a picture of Huey Long, fade to one showing a breadline, then a picture of Charlie Rangel.
Narrator:
"Maybe Charlie Rangel wants to be the next Huey Long, maybe just knowing he has this control will satisfy him.
Huey Long, the "KingFish"
"Kingfish?" Charlie, you look like a Catfish.
Hmmmmm. The Catfish. "
Excellent post.
Society was more class-centered then, true. However, this isn't all that relevant a distinction -- being an officer in WWI wasn't all that much safer than being a grunt.
Q: How many legs does a cow have if you call a tail a leg?
A: Four. Calling it something doesn't make it so.
This idiot keeps stepping into this hole and Republicans are too stupid to exploit it.
We need some geezer with horn rimmed glasses and a herringbone tweed coat in front of a camera, shaking his finger in the air and intoning solemn outrage: "Our children will not be fodder for your foreign adventures sir!"
Narrator:
"Rangel wants control of your kids, but only for a few years. He won't say what he wants it for.."
Then the camera cuts to footage of Kofi Anan saying "...the people of Sudan must understand that violence achieves nothing..."
Then cut to a picture of Huey Long, fade to one showing a breadline, then a picture of Charlie Rangel.
Narrator:
"Maybe Charlie Rangel wants to be the next Huey Long, maybe just knowing he has this control will satisfy him.
Huey Long, the "KingFish"
"Kingfish?" Charlie, you look like a Catfish.
Hmmmmm. The Catfish. "
True. I was in my late teens/twenties then. So, when you see those MSM photo's from back in the'60's that say, "Anti-Vietnam War Protest", please remember that much of the participation (potential draftees, girlfriends, parents) was really anti-draft based. Unless the MSM media is controlled or self-controlled, as in WWII, a draft will generate and power an anti-war movement. It is understandably very hard for young men who were scared of dying in the War to admit being scared, or to admit a selfish desire to place their personal time above the country's need. But the MSM will take the most credible reasons for opposing a war and provide all the cover any potential draftee needs to bug out.
IMHO, I think President Bush could have done, and could still do more regarding recruitment if he simply related the burden being carried by those currently in the military and asked Americans to enlist. If the "Go Long" or "Go High" option is chosen in Iraq (as opposed to "Go Home") he should ask Americans to enlist in conjunction with that decision. But, here's the problem: JFKennedy's "Bear any burden, pay any price in the the defense of liberty" words assured potential enlistees (like me) of the nation's COMMITMENT. That their efforts, or death, would not be in vain. Having run from that commitment in Vietnam, a clear commitment by both Democrat and Republican leaders would now be necessary to encourage a large number of enlistments.
I've previously compared this situation to marriage. In both cases, COMMITMENT, is key. Does "for better or for worse, until death do us part" have the same value to a marriage when it comes from the lips of a divorcee?
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.