http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rangel-to-reintroduce-military-draft-measure-2009-01-14.html
Some dolt is going to reintroduce his bill for a military draft. It failed last time by a vote of 402-2.
The military does not want it. Draftees simply are not the quality of soldier we want. Their actions are more likely to cost us political capital around the world also.
The population doesn't want a draft.
And the poor people he is purportedly trying to protect don't want the damn draft. The ones that choose to join would have less pay (draft = don't need to attract or retain as many real soldiers) and the ones that don't want to join would have to. Not sure how it comes out as a positive for the poor.
What a waste of time. Just publish a statement that says you don't like wars. That's what you are trying to say.
/full disclosure - past draft age (for first 2 rounds anyway... if we get to round 3 and they are taking 28-35 years olds we are in trouble), probably wouldn't pass the fitness exam married, child, and graduate degree. The impact on me would be negligible. So this isn't a don't draft me whine.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rangel-to-reintroduce-military-draft-measure-2009-01-14.html
Some dolt is going to reintroduce his bill for a military draft. It failed last time by a vote of 402-2.
The military does not want it. Draftees simply are not the quality of soldier we want. Their actions are more likely to cost us political capital around the world also.
The population doesn't want a draft.
And the poor people he is purportedly trying to protect don't want the damn draft. The ones that choose to join would have less pay (draft = don't need to attract or retain as many real soldiers) and the ones that don't want to join would have to. Not sure how it comes out as a positive for the poor.
What a waste of time. Just publish a statement that says you don't like wars. That's what you are trying to say.
/full disclosure - past draft age (for first 2 rounds anyway... if we get to round 3 and they are taking 28-35 years olds we are in trouble), probably wouldn't pass the fitness exam married, child, and graduate degree. The impact on me would be negligible. So this isn't a don't draft me whine.
I won 38th place in the first draft lottery in the fall of 1969. That was a winning ticket for an all expense paid trip to Viet Nam. I was in college in my sophomore year. My age/class year group and older was allowed to complete up to a 4 year program as long as satisfactory progress was made toward a degree. Freshmen and subsequent groups were allowed to finish the semester in which they received their "Greetings" notice. Exemptions for married, children, education level, defense critical jobs, and others were null and void as I remember. That was part of the reason for the lottery. Exemptions were seen as discrimiation. Remember, this was still the 60s. Minorities were being drafted in numbers disproportional to their percentage of the population.
I graduated in 72 and got drafted in July. The draft ended in August. (Technically, I joined the Navy to avoid forced induction into the branch of the Selective Service's choice. I was lucky in that we pulled out of 'Nam while I was finishing my Navy Electronics school.) I met and worked with many good people in the Navy. A lot were draftees like me. They did their job and stayed out of trouble but had no intention of staying in the service. I also met a few people with a really bad attitude that were a hazzard to their "shipmates". I believe the services are better off with personnel that want that job.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rangel-to-reintroduce-military-draft-measure-2009-01-14.html
Some dolt is going to reintroduce his bill for a military draft. It failed last time by a vote of 402-2.
The military does not want it. Draftees simply are not the quality of soldier we want. Their actions are more likely to cost us political capital around the world also.
The population doesn't want a draft.
And the poor people he is purportedly trying to protect don't want the damn draft. The ones that choose to join would have less pay (draft = don't need to attract or retain as many real soldiers) and the ones that don't want to join would have to. Not sure how it comes out as a positive for the poor.
What a waste of time. Just publish a statement that says you don't like wars. That's what you are trying to say.
/full disclosure - past draft age (for first 2 rounds anyway... if we get to round 3 and they are taking 28-35 years olds we are in trouble), probably wouldn't pass the fitness exam married, child, and graduate degree. The impact on me would be negligible. So this isn't a don't draft me whine.
Well someone better tell Hometown to pack his bags for Canada again if this gets through (he's probably too old now).
Quido, Canada is no longer accepting war objectors from the U.S.
I grew up in Lortondale surrounded by houses full of boys my age. Not one of them served in Vietnam. Vietnam was a completely discredited war that was fought by working class kids. Middle and Upper Class men got deferrals or served in the National Guard. You know, like Cheney and Bush.
In fact there is long history in the U.S. of our wars being fought by the working class with some exceptions like WWI and WWII.
Now, that is exactly why we need to reexamine a draft. The burden of fighting this war has largely fallen on working class men and women. And I believe the prospect of a draft would curtail our military operations.
Now, I have done you the courtesy being candid about my lack of military service. I was up for the lottery in its last two years but was not called.
When are you going to play fair and tell us what it is you don't want to reveal about your military service?
Meanwhile you need to study what was happening here on the home front during Vietnam because it's obvious you don't have a clue.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Quido, Canada is no longer accepting war objectors from the U.S.
That is because they have determined that people who volunteer to fight for their country should put up and actually fight for their country. There is no draft to be dodged, hence, no need for consciousness objector or political status in Canada.
quote:
Vietnam was a completely discredited war that was fought by working class kids. Middle and Upper Class men got deferrals or served in the National Guard. You know, like Cheney and Bush.
Clinton didn't even do that did he? And that coward McCain didn't sign up for that war. Pointing fingers in such a way is not productive.
quote:
In fact there is long history in the U.S. of our wars being fought by the working class with some exceptions like WWI and WWII.
1) We have a largely volunteer army. So it makes sense that the "working" class generally joins the army. Also worth noting that some 85% of the country are working class, I would expect the majority of soldiers to also be working class.
2) Wars are waged to improve or somehow advantage the nations that is fighting it. Would it be more advantageous for our nation to send engineers, doctors, industrialists, and intellectuals into combat than "common" workers?
Einstein, I know you are really bright and are working on the atomic bomb, but grab a rifle and shut up. Mr. Ford, thanks for the tanks and your production abilities are remarkable, but how about you hop in one of those things and shoot some Germans?
Fair? Probably not. But we aren't out to be fair when we are fighting a war, we are out to win. The purpose of the war is to improve our nation. Sending the brightest minds our nation has to go die en mass wouldn't help that prospect.
*NOT* saying the Vietnam style draft was fair. Not saying draftees were all dumb clods. Just arguing the big picture, which favors a pragmatic instead of individualistic view of the draft.
3) Currently we have no active draft. No one has to join the military or is coerced into joining. If they can't find a job and don't want to join... they will be fed, housed, and receive medical attention from government programs just the same. Rich kids can join the military, poor kids can join the military.
Not sure I see the inequity in that system. Is the belief that if we institute a draft of all person we will free up enough white collar jobs that the "working class" without an education will suddenly become doctors, accounts, lawyers, and engineers? Or are you saying that the working class have too many opportunities in the military and we need to take them away?
Not sure what this would accomplish.
quote:
Now, that is exactly why we need to reexamine a draft. The burden of fighting this war has largely fallen on working class men and women. And I believe the prospect of a draft would curtail our military operations.
Again, you want a draft because you do not like war. You do not want a draft because you think it will benefit the military. It will not help us win the war. It will not help the social fabric, the economy, or the well being of the nation. By weakening the military, putting strain on the fabric of our society, and involuntarily sending young men and women to war you hope to accomplish your goal.
But so long as you get what you want...
- - - -
As for full disclosure? I have 2 relatives, 3 friends, and 3 other classmates who are currently in some phase of deployment, just got back, or are preparing to go in to Iraq or Afghanistan. I have a cousin at West Point (who could have gone to ANY college he wanted). I know people involved with THIS war. Involved by their own volition. And none of them want to see a draft.
Me? I did ROTC and played soldier for a while. The military was not the route I choose because I'm too damn sickly, too undisciplined, and too selfish to spend 4 years of my life getting shot at. So I made a choice to do other things.
Respect the choice I made and the choices other people made. If we NEED a draft to meet our military requirements as a nation I'll throw my name in the hat (and be rejected). Until that happens, I'll let the professional soldiers handle it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The military was not the route I choose because I'm too damn sickly, too undisciplined, and too selfish to spend 4 years of my life getting shot at.
The military can teach all but the most unreachable that a minimum level of discipline is easier than remaining undisciplined. You would have survived the military part. Can't speak to the prospect of bullets. I didn't care for that part either. Someone in a job that doesn't like that job is still a less effective "employee".
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Quido, Canada is no longer accepting war objectors from the U.S.
I grew up in Lortondale surrounded by houses full of boys my age. Not one of them served in Vietnam. Vietnam was a completely discredited war that was fought by working class kids. Middle and Upper Class men got deferrals or served in the National Guard. You know, like Cheney and Bush.
In fact there is long history in the U.S. of our wars being fought by the working class with some exceptions like WWI and WWII.
Now, that is exactly why we need to reexamine a draft. The burden of fighting this war has largely fallen on working class men and women. And I believe the prospect of a draft would curtail our military operations.
Now, I have done you the courtesy being candid about my lack of military service. I was up for the lottery in its last two years but was not called.
When are you going to play fair and tell us what it is you don't want to reveal about your military service?
If you have followed my posts, I have already revealed my service. I was a medic and served for nearly 11 years.
As for the excuse for not serving, I have posted and reposted your post about your "walk the earth" during the Vietnam era and your opinion of military service. Here it is:
"Posted - 11/14/2007 : 12:39:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was a candidate for the draft back during Vietnam and the lottery. The last year of the lottery my number was close but I lucked out. Before the lottery most of the guys that went were working class. Middle and Upper class kids got out by going to college and that qualified for a deferral before the lottery.
Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada.
Before the war was over I made one of my famous cross country hitch hiking trips and I made friends with another hitch hiker, a military man who was AWOL. We got stuck in Salt Lake City and stayed there all day and most of a night before we were picked up by some old guys from Arkansas in a truck. The military man was one of those people you feel like you know very well right away. We talked and talked and talked. Before we split up outside of Tulsa, I took his name and number. I wrote him several times over the years and never got a response. I still think about this man and hope that things worked out for him. I've lost his address, can't even remember where he was from."
As for military deferrals, funny that you did not mention our VP-elect Joe Biden, Howard Dean, or Bill Clinton. Oh, and what branch of the military did Obama serve?
With all that said, I agree with you and Red Arrow that the draft is not a solution to our current military situation. I also agree with CF that Rangel is using the draft as a vehicle to push is anti-war position. Rangel should be focusing his attention more on his own tax issues, the cheat.
Red Arrow:
By undisciplined I mean that I question authority. I understand my roll as a cog in most instances, but the very nature of that understanding would be harmful in a military roll. The military wants people that think... but not people that question orders.
Not that I wouldn't be able to put up and shut up, but I wouldn't be a big fan of it. Hence, I opted to not join the military.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Not that I wouldn't be able to put up and shut up, but I wouldn't be a big fan of it. Hence, I opted to not join the military.
That was kind of my position except that I didn't have the option of not joining. I was fortunate in that after boot camp and schools, I ended up in a mostly technical atmosphere. They didn't try to make your life miserable as long as you followed the basic rules. OK for 4 years but I didn't want a career there. It's great for some, but not me.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Red Arrow:
By undisciplined I mean that I question authority. I understand my roll as a cog in most instances, but the very nature of that understanding would be harmful in a military roll. The military wants people that think... but not people that question orders.
Not that I wouldn't be able to put up and shut up, but I wouldn't be a big fan of it. Hence, I opted to not join the military.
Not sure what put up and shut up means there, or "wants people that think... but not people that question orders."
I found the army experience I had to be fantastic in most respects when it comes to authority and such. No matter what your rank, if you spot someone doing something wrong, no matter what their rank, it was your duty to point that out and correct them. There was many a time when I looked a superior in the eye and said no, and told them what they were doing wrong. And they have no choice but to do the right thing because all the other people above them and below them would expect that everyone has to follow the right rules. The only catch may be that if you were a slacker and not perfect,,, then the person above you would find your mistakes and could make your life miserable lol. I just kept everything ship shape, followed the rules, dont act up or do stupid things, and did my job perfectly. Nobody could touch me. I wish the rest of the world were that way lol. Where you run into problems is the screwups cant do or say anything because they would get it back. Plus you would be amazed at the number of people in the military who do stand by afraid to say anything. They can go out an kill people or be in harms way, but get them in a room with a bunch of their buddies and officers and they turn ito cowering lemmings afraid to speak up against another person or the group. And as those of you who know me would guess,,, I spoke up plenty lol. Sir! Permission to speak sir! (oooh nooo its that Franklin again) lol [:P]
Let me simplify it for you Artist... have you ever known me to withhold an opinion even if stating it might be detrimental to my well being? The answer is no. That doesn't go over well in the military, at least not from my experience.
I harbor no delusions about the military being a draconian sub culture or anything, it just wasn't for me. I had enough contact to figure that out. Add to it the fact that I had a kid at 19 and a host of other reason and it wasn't for me. So I passed.
I did qualify as an expert marksmen my first time on base though (my ROTC did a week at Fort McCoy). Man did that piss off a lot of the real infantrymen that some college boy on base playing army out shot them. They showed me up by calling in artillery strikes later in the day (they don't let pretend army guys do that). Good times, good times.
Anyway, anyone who chooses joins gains a notch of respect in my book.
You know Cannon, I thought about what you said over the weekend. Your post sort of slipped by me when I first saw it, but what you have said is quite remarkable.
"2) Wars are waged to improve or somehow advantage the nations that are fighting it. Would it be more advantageous for our nation to send engineers, doctors, industrialists, and intellectuals into combat than "common" workers?"
You are saying that the lives of common workers have less value to the nation that the lives of professionals.
Cannon, you are one cold piece of ice. And you are wrong. And your values are all messed up. God may have to send you back to the bottom of the heap for a while so that you can find your heart.
All work has value. Every life has value.
I can't believe you actually said what you said.
Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves. – D. H. Lawrence (1885-1938), 1915
I was waiting for you to catch that. I really hope this isn't the first time you have had to think this through. From the Revolutionary War on (ever wonder why Franklin was in France for most of the war? Or why most of the Founding Fathers didn't pick up a rifle?), to the Civil War (Welcome to the USA, here's your rifle / my slaves make the economy work, you go fight the war), to WWII (industrialists, engineers, etc.) to the extrapolation in Vietnam... America has always followed the guidelines I've laid out and the practice is not unique to the USA.
I am not saying a white collar life is more valuable than a blue collar life in a moral sense. Really, it isn't even a blue collar/white collar thing. It is a distinction of value to the nation - economically, socially, and militarily.
A man that puts lug nuts on cars for GM, an attorney who does business formation in Tulsa, or a graphics designer who makes web pages is not that vital to a nation. An engineer, a physicist, a chemist, a business man who can run a factory, or a tool and die maker have far more value. Some white collar jobs that seem odd are more valuable than you first think: Attorneys are trained to draft, interpret and apply rules - the bureaucracy of the military needs many. Accountants are needed to keep track of industry of war.
Anyways, these are the basis for exemptions from the draft in WWII - things that are in short supply and necessary for the war effort.
The model lends itself to extrapolation. In general blue collar workers are low skill positions that can be replaced relatively quickly. A punch press operator, a riveter, someone to pour molds at the foundry, or the forklift driver to takes part around the factory can readily be replaced. The white collar workers require years of schooling and more years of experience before they are capable of great worth. Thus, the extrapolation to include exemptions for college. (clearly not all blue collar jobs are that way and indeed today many many blue collar jobs are high skill positions - try to train a welder or crane operator in less than a year)
It is an intrinsic value of education to our society and our nation. An educated citizen is statistically worth more economically and potentially for a war effort. It isn't a judgment of skill, intelligence, or personal merit - it is a cold, hard national calculation.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, it is more beneficial for a nation to send an unskilled worker off to die than a skilled worker. It makes more sense to send single men off to die than married men who presumably can be producing the next generation. Young men are more efficient fighters and present the military with a greater chance of success with a lesser cost (get more for less). Men are stronger and more aggressive than women.
I'm not making judgments. I'm saying how it is from a purely pragmatic standpoint (which requires generalizations). And certainly war is the purvey of pragmatists. IE. if either Robert Oppenheimer or I had to pick up a rifle in the opening years of WWII - sending Oppenheimer would be a stupid decision for the nation. Without a way to make that call on an individual basis, generalizations were made en mass.
quote:
You are saying that the lives of common workers have less value to the nation that the lives of professionals.
Cannon, you are one cold piece of ice. And you are wrong. And your values are all messed up. God may have to send you back to the bottom of the heap for a while so that you can find your heart.
All work has value. Every life has value.
I can't believe you actually said what you said.
The decision is cold. Morally it is wrong. All work has great value and all life has value.
I'm not arguing with you that it is a nice thing to do, I'm not even arguing that it is the correct decision,
and I'm certainly not pretending like my life has any more value than anyone else. I'm merely pointing out the pragmatic decisions that were made and inevitably will be made someday in the future. It makes more sense to send low-skilled people to fight our wars than our most skilled people from a purely pragmatic perspective.
Please make an argument that makes it better for the nation as a whole to send engineers, chemists, physicists and industrialists to war. Purge those people and just send everyone in with a rifle and millions more would have died in WWII. Even from a moral perspective, the number of lives saved by the achievements of the "non-common workers" ultimately saved the lives of more common workers than would have been spared if the intellectuals had picked up a rifle.
If you are assigning equal value to all life then the ability to save more life is the correct decision... still resulting in disparities. The "everyone is equal" philosophy on life would have ended with the loss of more equal lives - cold hard fact is some people have the ability to contribute more in ways other than firing a rifle (I do not count myself among them, for the record).
Again, doesn't make the system fair by any means. Just commenting on the practical merits of the system for the nation. I'm sure I'm rambling because it is such a callous position to take - which is why I continually emphasize that it is only taken as a matter of national interest (my Orwellian comrades).
quote:
God may have to send you back to the bottom of the heap for a while so that you can find your heart.
Come what may.
We love to beat the drums of war but we have been unable to win a war. In the revolution war England's supply lines were too long so there was no victory only a settlement. As one is aware the English burned the white house. Jefferson, who was his stud, breeding his own female slaves, making him one of our largest slave dealers, Under a British death warrant, he fled to France with black Sally to help over throw the house of Bourbon by Napoleon who failed in his conquest of Russia. The war-between the two nations of the northern and southern united states fought over economy reasons, was the most costly of any war in lives lost. We fought the Spanish mini war (Mexico) loosing it. (remember the Alamo built by the
Spanish) We invaded Canada and lost. We entered into WW1 then WW11 with a fresh army after Europe had been defeated by Germany, We lost the war in Korea, Nam, along with Iraq and the mid-east years after we were told we had won. Now we hear the rumble of a draft after we have dispensed the Nation Guard and are running out of soldiers.
We should find the drawings of the Great Wall Of China and start getting the supplies lined up to build one around this country.
But with Russia having 50 nuclear warheads and programming to build 70 more such rockets, it may be time to build the cities underground.
It is time to cut the heads out of the drums of war and see if we can find a hundred years of peace.
Shadows, your history is so amazingly wrong. Please find a better source.
1) Revolutionary War
England's supply lines were no longer than they ever had been. They had as many colonial soldiers as imports. Their Navy ruled supreme. Supply was not an issue.
And even if it was, all of their armies surrendered under fire. To me, when your army surrenders, agrees to give up 13 colonies, lays down their arms, packs up, and leaves... it is a victory.
Please explain to me what terms would have been required for victory. Must we killed every Britain?
2) 1812 the White House was burned along with most of Washington. The war started in large part to stop Britain from forcing US sailors into the royal navy - when the war was over the only thing that changed was that the British no longer forced service of American merchants. After that accord was finished Jackson kicked as tail in New Orleans and we ended on a positive note.
We certainly got our butts handed to us in the beginning and it was a very strange fight to pick (we declared war on them with 20 ships, they had 1000), but at the end of the day we got what we wanted.
Per Jefferson: he had 140 slaves. While making him a large slave holder, he was certainly not near the nations largest "slave dealers." He was a slave holder, a philanderer, and by some accounts a bad drunk.
And I have no idea how you got of the opinion that Jefferson had anything to do with Napoleon overthrowing the house of Bourbon. He was the ambassador to France and negotiated a trade agreement with Prussia, but otherwise your ramblings make no sense at all.
3) Civil war was the most costly, but certainly we won that one (default).
4) The Spanish America war was a unfettered victory for the USA. We destroyed their Atlantic and Pacific fleets and crushed their troops in Cuba and the Philippines. The USA and gained the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba as territories.
This guy named Teddy Roosevelt was involved, war hero, help his career along... ever heard of him?
You can cast this war as a fight we picked just to kick a "super power" as they were on their way down, but casting it as a loss just doesn't work.
5) Mexican American War
Other than invading Mexico, taking their capital, capturing their president, and having Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California seceded to the USA... it was a terrible loss. We gained ~700,000 square miles of territory upon the total surrender of Mexico. Another horrible defeat for the U.S.
6) The invasion of Canada was part of the War of 1812, which you discussed previously.
7) WWI?
Pretty sure the treaty of Versailles stipulated the total surrender of the OTHER side in that one.
8) WWII?
Axis powers total surrender.
Japanese total surrender.
So Europe had WWII under control and we just came in and finished the job? Please tell that to the 150,000 Americans killed in Europe. All of Europe was already conquered but for Britain, and Britain was already relying on the USA for support. But ok, have it your way.
But try to take away our victory over Japan and you're a fool. Weren't our supply lines too long to be of any good? We only beat Britain in the revolution because of their supply lines, surely the 7,000 mile lines in the Pacific were too far for us to do any good...
9) Korea?
First, "we" did not have a war in Korea. We went in under the United Nations flag.
Second, our stated purpose was to preserve the internationally stipulated border at the 38th parallel. North Korea/China/Soviet Unions goal was to overrun all forces and occupy the entire Korean peninsula. Today, the country remains divided at the 38th parallel.
Between the two sides, it has to be surmised that we won. Please explain otherwise. Again, unless you define "win" as only a total victory. Which was never sought in this instance by the United Nations.
10) Vietnam.
Won almost every battle (including the fabled TET offensive), lost the war. A great lesson in war being the extension of politics by other means. As it turns out, killing them all was not a viable strategy. Any high school kids who plays real time strategy games can tell you that waiting for the enemy to come to you and fight in your backyard (South Vietnam, as it were) is not a good idea.
I can't pretend to know the entire nuisances of the time, but can sit back with hindsight and shake my head at the battle plan.
You're 1/10. 2/10 if we want to count 1812 as a loss (more accurately a stalemate) .
11) Iraq I
Stated goal: Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
End Result: Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Again, you can argue about what the goal SHOULD have been. But we accomplished our stated goal and walked away. Certainly a "W".
12) Iraq II
Stated Goal: "Liberation" of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
End Result: Saddam Hussein hanged to death.
The occupation was clearly very poorly devised. But the invasion was a striking victory.
- - -
Also worth pointing out that you neglected the Cold War as well as a slew of smaller wars - which all ended in an American "win." I'm not arguing they were just or justified. Just countering your horribly inaccurate history (also note I addressed them in the order raised, not timeline order).
Also worth noting that we are not "running out of soldiers." We actually exceeded the recruitment goals in 2008:
http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2008/10/10/13228-army-exceed-recruiting-goal-for-fiscal-year-2008/
It is open to debate if that was achieved by lowering the standards, but certainly a draft isn't going to cure that problem.
And finally:
quote:
But with Russia having 50 nuclear warheads and programming to build 70 more such rockets, it may be time to build the cities underground.
Russia has about 700 ICMB's capable of carrying 4 warheads each.
They have more than 400 medium range nuclear missiles.
They have 14 nuclear missile submarines which can carry more than 600 nuclear warheads.
They have 80 nuclear bombers.
Final count I think you went 2/14 giving you the benefit of the doubt. While I agree that 100 years of peace would be far superior to another 100 years of warfare, please don't make things up to support your contention.
"Please make an argument that makes it better for the nation as a whole to send engineers, chemists, physicists and industrialists to war."
Okay.
1) If you eliminate the notion of a shared burden you will dissolve the glue that holds our culture together and risk class warfare.
2) If the upper and educated classes are exempt from warfare whatever constraints ensure judicious use of our military will vanish and perpetual war will ensue. (I think this may have already happened.)
You probably really believe you deserve the good fortune you have enjoyed. It's just part of the natural order of things, right?
What did F. Scott Fitzgerald say, something like, "the rich are different from you and I." For you we'll substitute, "the educated are different from you and I."
I hold out the prospect of karma and you say, "Come what may."
Well you and I both have read stories about successful attorneys ending up homeless and living on the street. I certainly hope this doesn't happen and if it does I'll put you up in my basement until you get back on your feet. But I may ask for some free legal work.
Lastly, I think inteller is on to something.
"I'll even soften the requirement a little bit. Instead of military service, give kids exiting high school an option of serving Peace Corp, Americorp, or military. Length of tours are staggered, shorter for military, longer for Americorp."
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
1) If you eliminate the notion of a shared burden you will dissolve the glue that holds our culture together and risk class warfare.
2) If the upper and educated classes are exempt from warfare whatever constraints ensure judicious use of our military will vanish and perpetual war will ensue. (I think this may have already happened.)
Has that dissolved yet? Did during any of the periods I mentioned? People that choose to serve CHOOSE to serve as it now stands. They are not alienated by those that choose not to serve. You are attempting to assign a social problem to a burden that you are advocating be placed on society.
And you failed to address the notion that many more people would have died if we had sent "the educated" off to die. Literally, MILLIONS more Americans would have died in WWII. We didn't win because we sent the most men with rifles off to die, we won because we had the best technology. If we sent our scientists and engineers off to die that simply would not have been the case, the arsenal of democracy would have slowed, the atomic bomb would never have been developed.
Surely you see that?
quote:
You probably really believe you deserve the good fortune you have enjoyed. It's just part of the natural order of things, right?
I deserve the good fortune that comes from spending 4 years of high school studying so I could get into a good University. I deserve the good fortune that can be generated from 5 years of college in a program which 1/3 fail or drop out. I deserve the good fortune I gained from 3 additional years of graduate school.
It is the natural order of things that your actions have consequences. The consequence of studying hard and amassing $100,000+ of student debt while investing 8 years of your life in education is the prospect for better jobs and better potential income (8 years of lost potential income mind you). The consequence of joining the military is the potential for a career, benefits, networking, life experience, payment, college money and a resume builder. I deserve the "good fortune" that came from my chosen path as much as the good fortune anyone else deserves from their chosen path.
quote:
What did F. Scott Fitzgerald say, something like, "the rich are different from you and I." For you we'll substitute, "the educated are different from you and I."
Neither path makes one better than the other. It is merely a different road to take which most people hope leads to the same destination. Doesn't make me better than anyone. Rich, poor, educated, uneducated... it doesn't matter in the slightest. But you're damn right I deserve whatever good fortune I have coming my way.
My perspective on the draft in no way is a judgment on an individuals worth. I have been very clear on that and your emotional reaction has simply failed to comprehend the notion. But hey, you're far more altruistic than I anyway:
quote:
if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada.
You actually planned on ditching out so some other young man could go die in your place. At least I have said I was willing to put up and shut up if it ever came to that. So keep throwing those stones.
quote:
I hold out the prospect of karma and you say, "Come what may."
NO.
YOU HELD OUT THE PROSPECT OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION. Those are two entirely different concepts. IMHO the God who demanded David take 100 foreskins for a wife, or slaughtered the first born of Egypt because their Kind worshiped the wrong god (they did nothing wrong mind you), or massacred entire cities so his people could have more land wouldn't mind a little pragmatism. Nor would he give a damn what I say - he tortured his most devout follower, killed his children, and took everything he had because the Devil goaded the Good Lord into doing so. If he wants to smite me, I'm not going to stop him anyway.
So come what may.
quote:
Well you and I both have read stories about successful attorneys ending up homeless and living on the street. I certainly hope this doesn't happen and if it does I'll put you up in my basement until you get back on your feet. But I may ask for some free legal work.
You are under the mistaken assumption that I am a successful attorney. That notion in Tulsa is somewhat lacking, I have made far more money in my life from things other than working as an attorney. I hope that changes, but being an attorney in Tulsa is far from a path to riches.
Nonetheless, I'll take you up on the offer should I ever need it.
- - -
I'll say this one more time...
I am NOT arguing that any person's life is morally better than anyone elses. I am not a better person than anyone else because of my educational level. It doesn't matter at all.
HOWEVER, when you are required to place an economic or war time value on human life there are difference in the value. Pretending otherwise is simply not realistic. I understand your desire for an "all animals are equal" Utopian perspective, but reality dictates otherwise.
You want what you stated earlier... an end to wars. Just as this Congressman is raising the prospect of a draft in an attempt to protest the war in general you are arguing for equality in a draft so that everyone suffers and wars will be less likely. I understand your theory. But it is a backdoor protest of war instead of a pragmatic war time decision.
It is also ignoring the fact that poor people have 1 vote, just like rich people. And the great uneducated masses still comprise a majority of our nation. You entire take is assuming that they are too stupid to figure out how to vote and can not take care of themselves. Trust me, even if they aren't educated people are generally not stupid when it comes to self preservation. You can trust them to figure it out.
And once more, I am NOT advocating a draft. I am NOT advocating what draft policy should be in place. I am NOT deciding that one life is worth less than any other. I am NOT saying that I am better than anyone else. I am NOT saying that educational level makes anyone better, nor is an indication of intelligence.
I am merely explaining why the historic draft policy can be viewed as a pragmatic solution to selective military conscription.
- - -
Thanks for the spirited discussion.
Cannon, Everything I do has an element of emotion in it. It would be impossible for me to do anything without emotion. That's part of being human.
If that's news to you I have another revelation for you.
Sometimes you do everything right, and misfortune comes your way.
You have discounted luck even though you have obviously enjoyed some luck. God makes rain fall on good people and bad people. In other words, misfortune is not always earned. And good fortune is not always earned. But you don't know that yet.
And I worked against the war so that no one would die. I protested here in Tulsa. I protested in Washington, D.C. during Moratorium, the largest antiwar protest. I continue to be an advocate against war today.
I would say that your below the belt punch on that issue involved some lower form of emotion.
It would be hard for you younger guys to understand what my generation went through with Vietnam. We stood up against authority and we paid a price for it. You younger guys haven't had to stand up against much of anything, thanks in part to my generation's pioneering path.
There was no "lower form of emotion" involved in posting that quote. And I don't really see how it is a hit below the belt in that it is a comment you espouse that is perfectly on topic. On one hand you are advocating for a draft of all parties, on the other hand you say that you protested the draft and planned on leaving the country if you yourself were drafted.
I am not intending to belittle your position, I am merely pointing out that your stance seems divided on the issue. Just as you propounded that God should curse me for my position, your plan to ditch out on the draft could be viewed exactly the same way. Hence my sarcastic quip to keep throwing stones.
I respect your anti war stance. I often disagree with it, but I understand the position. However, I find great fault in a desire to initiate mandatory conscription as a way to help facilitate that position. Furthermore, it seems your previous activities to subvert the draft serve to weaken you position in that regard to a large extent.
quote:
It would be hard for you younger guys to understand what my generation went through with Vietnam. We stood up against authority and we paid a price for it. You younger guys haven't had to stand up against much of anything, thanks in part to my generation's pioneering path
I agree that it would be hard for me to understand exactly what that experience was like. However, I am rather at odds with the statement that the Boomers have somehow done great things. The hippies were a minority, the war protesters, were a minority, the drug culture a minority... and they lost out to the majority for better or worse. We still have wars, the drug culture is more persecuted by Boomer now then it ever has been, and hippies remain an obscure minority. You started down the path towards change - then ended up "pioneering a path" to being the highest consuming most debt ridden wasteful generation of people the world has ever seen (my generation still has a chance to beat you to it!). What's funny, is your argument that MY generation had it easy because YOUR generation did all the hard work is essentially what "the Greatest Generation" thinks of the Boomers... and probably back ad naseum.
Not faulting YOU for it, but the Boomer generation has certainly been a mixed bag for the future of America... as all generations are. I'm sure you have some image of me as a conservative goat sitting in a plush office with my feet on the backs of the poor hating hippies and plotting new wars. While we differ on many things HT our views are more similar than you think on most topics. I rather enjoy most of what the 1960's brought us - but the notion that my generation has a cake walk because of the 60's just doesn't sit right.
quote:
You have discounted luck even though you have obviously enjoyed some luck. God makes rain fall on good people and bad people. In other words, misfortune is not always earned. And good fortune is not always earned. But you don't know that yet.
Please don't recite what I know or don't know. I've worked damn hard, been rained on plenty, and had plenty of good luck along the way. I'm well aware of my fortune, shortcomings, faults, trials, tribulations, and curses. I've had a much easier road that many I'm sure, but there has been no silver ladder to the top (if you think I'm at or near the top my friend, you are sorely mistaken).
As Cicero said, fortune is blind. All we can do is position ourselves as best as possible for the success we seek. A string of good decisions may never be rewarded while a single bad decision is usually punished. All we can do is continue to improve our chances and hope the Gods choose not to smite us for one more day.
- - - -
I've enjoyed the chat. Hope you don't think I'm trying to attack you in any way. Merely taking a different position than you are and advocating for it while showing the shortcomings of your position. You'll have to come to a lunch someday or otherwise continue this discussion over a beer... I'm really not an donkey. [:P]
Actually I kind of feel sorry for the attorneys in Tulsa. You guys just don't make very much money compared to your counterparts elsewhere. You said as much once.
Associates here start out at less money than I was making in the early 90s. Of course, since I'm here I now work for something just short of free.
You guys work for the guys that work for the guys that have money.
Put aside anything Richard Nixon said about the silent majority. The whole country moved to the left during the 70s. Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law. I mean imagine that.
The best and brightest were the on the left. Even those that weren't lefties grew their hair long so that they look like they were. The rightwingers were seen as kooks. Reagan changed that perception.
Anyway, the war ended not long after the lottery was introduced and I can't help but believe it had something to do with upper class kids really having to serve.
Now, who knows what I would have done if I was called. I thought I might go to Canada. My buddies and I had set off for Canada a few years earlier but ended up on a commune in Colorado. Who knows, I might have pulled the homosexual card out of my hat. I had already attended meetings of a very early homosexual rights group in Dallas called the Circle of Friends.
I'm not sure If I would have been brave enough to go to Canada.
CF:
We seem to have different history books. Mine says that England uses their land in US as a prison camp until they were forced to move it to Australia when they pull out in 1789. From the daily news it seems that many prisoners were left here in the with what became the 13 states Mine says Germany in WW11 with the help of the man who put us in space was sending his design of the V11 rockets and buzz flying bombs into London from the shores of France when we stepped in with a fresh army and started the bombing the women and children of Germany to break their spirit. We did the same for Japan.
Get a DNA report on Jefferson and his favorite son Tom. There is a long report on his black descendents.
We revise history to our liking. We are a warring nation acting under the guise of correcting all wrongs to our liking. From the beginning the story is retold.
By the way look up the family history of hero George and his tradings. England had banned slavery in 1824.