In my columntoday, I point out that Ken Burns’ documentary "The War" celebrates something that no longer exists in this country — the citizen-soldier.
I think a draft, for all its faults, would be the most obvious way to unite the public behind a war and ensure a shared sacrifice. And it might help avoid elective foreign blunders such as Iraq.
A draft would give the gut-check question — would you send your daughter or son to this war? — real weight and meaning.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
86 Comments
A draft would prevent nothing and would do more harm than good. I served in both the draft military and the voluntary.
My leaders from Vietnam (I didn’t go) were draftees with the worst in criminal records – both in and out of service. Many were low IQ, smoked pot, and many were not professional. They could care LESS about the service or their country. They were there because they were FORCED to be there.
And, the rich kids still got deferments, or made special arrangements (Bush, Clinton for example).
A draft is more lop-sided than anything after everyone gets excused.
The quality and professionalism didn’t increase until 1) the draftees were gone 2) the service started urinalysis testing in about 1981.
Puzzled, Eagle Beak, about your comment on urinalysis beginning in about 1981. When I was on active duty in the USAF from 1973 to 1977, random UAs were happening quite often. Or were you making reference to UAs becoming a part of the enlistment process?
Randy
Your judgment of the war aside I don’t think it would make much difference.
The ones who end up in combat will largely be the ones we have there now. The ones who want to be there. The volunteers, the serious professional soldiers, the motivated ones.
Yes, it would help stop stupid wars like this one.
Now, the CONs just point their fingers and say, “they SIGNED UP for it” meaning when they come home in pieces, it’s their own damn fault and we don’t have to do anything about it.
Correction to my earlier post. My service began in 1975. I should have said my experience in the service was with both drafted members and volunteers. I volunteered.
Puzzled, Posted by: Vaughn Tolle
I cannot speak for the air force and what you did. But I can tell you the United States Marine Corps began an active urinalysis program in as I said 1981. The CMC came out with one of his white letters as they were called – directing the survellence (sp) program. At that point, commanders began a very proactive program testing monthly all Marines selected “randomly”.
And UCMJ followed along with ineligibility to reenlist.
It worked!
“Would a draft keep us out of wars?”
The very title of the thread posits the exactly wrong question. We stay out of wars by enacting policies which make armed conflict less likely, recognizing that at some point it may become necessary.
Do you really want your sons and daughters drafted to serve a political “feel good” statement that we’d stay “out of wars” if we had a draft? Is there any evidence that the peacetime draft kept us out of wars in the past? I know of none.
We ought to institute a draft if, and only if, one is necessary to meet the manpower needs of the military, given some future set of circumstances. I cannot at this point imagine those circumstances, and I am certain the military leadership does not want to go back to a draft.
Morever, you really think that the sight of young men in coffins would be more painful if the young men were drafted? Those who propose this dreck apparantly believe that the rest of the world is as entirely self-centered as they are.
Quit using kids for fodder, either for cannons or politics.
Understand, Eagle Beak. I’m speaking from my personal experience as well, limited to the USAF in those days. There were many administrative discharge actions/courts martial which arose from the UAs “back then”, thus the question.
Now, the CONs just point their fingers and say,
Posted by: CapnAmerica
Capn no disrespect but I think that’s a little extreme. It’s one thing to hate “CONs” but to assume everyone of them think in the fashion you mentioned is too far off the rocker.
Again, I respect your views, but I don’t think that should be a reason to start a draft.
The media in World War II consisted of newspapers and radio. Most Americans were willing to serve.
The Media today comes in all forms and there are factions of the Media that will present ideological representations of the truth and facts.
I’m very sure if the MSM existed back then as it does today,there would have been a lot less cooperation in the draft.
Roosevelt would have had probably had to conduct a “poll” to see if he could declare war on Japan.
I’ve talked to quite a few draftees in the VA center and most had a bad attitude on just about everything.
Only in time of Global War who I suggest a draft for survival. They would probably have to build twenty more Levenworths just to hold the Draft evaders.
We ought to institute a draft if, and only if, one is necessary to meet the manpower needs of the military, given some future set of circumstances. Posted by: GMC70
Amen
Would a draft unify Americans? Yup. It would unify them behind ending our veiled imperial designs on the mideast.
It’s a catch 22. Our military as it stands does not have the resources to continue the “mission”. But there is not and there is not going to be support for that mission.
Nobody likes to hear it. But the fact is we already have a backdoor draft…via economic disa dvantage. Hence the ever increasing signing bonuses for enlisting.
More? My son was pigeon holed early on as special ed. Actually he has a vision related difficulty but he was pigeonholed none the less.
Get this. When my son main streamed into middle school, they again tried to enroll him in the JROTC. Quoting the principal “We like to get most of our special ed kids into JROTC.”
So, in a way, we already have a draft. We just don’t like to talk about it. That’s too bad. Leaves lots of room for misuse of those who choose in whatever way to serve.
Agreed, it was an overgeneralization, Eagle B. You were right to call me on that.
GMC,
“Morever, you really think that the sight of young men in coffins”
Have you noticed how well the bought-and-paid for media have observed your President’s ban on photos of coffins.
This is BushCo in a nutshell. If you can’t see it, it’s not happening.
Everybody, go shopping!
Although there are probably “some” who would meet JR’s definition of people who would be drafted if there was a draft, I served with many, many volunteers from all walks in life. Many, like me, came in for the GI Bill (original one expired in 1976 so I enlisted before to get entitled). Anyway, the GT test scores were not the lowest average and our economic state in life was not the lowest. I went on leave and visited many families and believe me – some of my buddies were well off. Many also liked the challenge of being the “best” (toughest), and like me – wanted to see the world.
You don’t start a draft because someone perceives we have one now.
Go back and read GMC’s post.
Brownback, Roberts and Tiahrt will keep their kids out of any conflict that they vote for. Are any of them in Iraq? Are they planning to send any to Iran if we invade Iran for simply having a different religion? Doubtful.
Here’s one thing that will keep us out of wars for profit, an absolute ban on war profiteering. No no-bid contracts, no profit incentive, everything must be bought and sold at cost.
The whole term “Volunteer Army” is misleading as hell. It’s like saying Boeing airplanes are built by “volunteers.”
Military service in America is now a career option. Oh, it’s all wrapped up in flags and “serving your country” and “defending democracy” rhetoric; the same kinds of arguments society uses to justify paying cops less than they deserve.
These aren’t “volunteers,” they are employees. It’s the natural extention of the business-izing of government. Ah, but they’re employees in an employer-take-all arrangement, just like working for Rockefeller or Carnegie or Henry Ford a hundred years ago.
In Iraq we’ve seen the employer change the terms of employment unilaterally. “Ooops! Did we say you serve in Iraq for one year? Sorry, now it’s 15 months! Surprise!”
But if National Guardsmen-and-women say, “I signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year and to help with tornado clean-up and flood relief…,” it’s not like they can turn in their resignation.
In the 60s the draft came to look a lot like slavery. In Shrub’s America, the military has turned into indentured servitude.
“Would a draft unify Americans? Yup. It would unify them behind ending our veiled imperial designs on the mideast.”
Folks who advance a draft as a way to make more or less likely a particular policy preference are exactly the people who should not be making that decision. You’ve made my point for me, JR.
Advancing a draft??
Not me! I have a kid remember?
Those who DO advance the draft (among liberals anyway) only wish to distribute the burden of American foreign policy and thus make us more measured ine use of our military. Not a nefarious thing, to my mind.
I joined the AF to avoid being drafted in the Army, and I stayed 24 years. Both our son AND daughter serve in the military. I do think the concept of a draft has merits, as posed by the question. However, times have changed, and we better be prepared for some challenges, i.e.Do we draft women? If not, why not? We better make it an “everybody goes” deal, with an absolute minimum of deferments, and some kind of mandatory alternative. We have to face the fact that only about 25% of today’s youth can even QUALIFY for the military given physical, mental, and moral requirements. We better start shaping these kids up in grade school if we want them to be fit after high school. I agree with the other posts about our current, “de facto” draft of the disadvantaged. Every single Congressman’s and Senator’s kid better go, or this won’t work at all. The uproar and protests would drown out all justification.
I don’t know how to strongly express my disagreement with a draft military. I just hope they ask those who serve or have served.
Ever try ordering someone to dig a slit trench? Or even to empty the GI can at the mess hall? Or ask a black man who can barely swim to jump off an amtrak into the ocean and swim to another one as part of training? Or a bazillion other nasty or seemingly dangerous things?
I am sure others served who can relate giving orders. As a young man to another young man, that was not always an easy proposition. Particularly if the junior was bigger than you and real ugly.
Now, take a guy who did NOT volunteer to serve and put him in the junior’s position.
I heard the words “F followed by U” many times. I can’t imagine how much worse it would be with draftees.
And, in a strange way, the draft is democracy.
Yeah, it got corrupted 25 years after World War II so people such as George WMD Bush could get a sweetheart no-show deal with the Alabama National Guard and brag, “Not one Jap got past Tuskaloosa!”
One of the reasons Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a giant among Americans is how he got an overwhelming majority of Congress to do the constitutional thing and actually *DECLARE WAR* against an enemy.
It’s one of the most conservative concepts given us by the Constitution of the United States: we don’t go to war unless we *declare* war.
Yeah, Truman finessed it with a “police action” in Korea. And LBJ abused it with the Gulf of Tonken Resolution. And George HW Bush further refined it to conduct the Gulf War with a widespread coalition of allies in 1991.
But for all their professed adulation of the Constitution’s “original intent,” conservatives have been the most egregious offenders of manipulating foreign policy to wage war far from our shores largely for the benefit of their financial backers such as Exxon, Halliburton, etc.
Anyone know what George W. Bush’s draft number was? Would he have been drafted in 1968?
I know a little about how it worked after 1970, but how it worked before that I’m not sure.
“Anyone know what George W. Bush’s draft number was? ”
Ah…. 74? No, wait a minute, that’s either his Yale grade point average , or his IQ. Maybe both, he’s got a lot of potential in that regard!
Only ask a black man who can barely swim? Are you inferring that only white men swim well? Or that only black men would, what? Refuse to do it?
You almost had me, Eagle Beak. Then you blew it, big time.
Hey Long Time Poster, where does JFK fit into your post? There werenearly 12000 U.S. military advisors in Vietnam in 1963.
As long as we aren’t discussing the draft directly.
I was under the pre-70 system. Everything was up to the local draft board. A board covered so many eligibles, so a city like Chicago would have several, like police precincts. A rural area might have one. The board got their quota to draft, and they rank-ordered all the eligibles. Every board was different, that’s why they went to the lottery. Mostly, they would defer married with children, then college, and sometimes, if quotas allowed, married without children. That was pretty much all there was to it. However, since it was a local board’s decision, it was relatively easy to schmooz up to a local board member or two if you had “clout,” to get your son pushed “down” on the list. BTW, I enlisted in Jan of 1970, and found that if I were not drafted in the old system, I had a number like 350!
We had the Operation Golden Flow (Urinalyis)in nam in 71-72.The test should be that the president and congress will have their of age children drafted and put into the conflict. The result. No more elective wars.
No more elective wars.Posted by: The Phantom
If it’s an elective war, why won’t your democrat candidate end it?
Easier to step into shit, than scrape it off.
Only ask a black man who can barely swim? Are you inferring that only white men swim well? Or that only black men would, what? Refuse to do it?
You almost had me, Eagle Beak. Then you blew it, big time.
Posted by: Rox | September 28, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Easy Rox! Generally black people have a harder time with swimming because they have less body fat. IIRC, whites have an extra layer of fat.
Are you inferring that only white men swim well?
How else do you want me to say it? I am not inferring anything racial. Call them dark green Marines. But many could not swim. I didn’t mean anything by my statement.
I sit and work with african Americans, and have worked with many different nationalities. In fact, my buddy sitting next to me who is buying the brewski tonight with us is, black.
Sorry if you took it that way.
I think the 13th Amendment to the Constitution provides some guidance on this subject, forcing someone into involuntary servitude should never be an option in this country.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Also does anyone else love the delicious irony of fighting wars to protect our freedom and democracy with an army partially comprised of citizens forced into slavery.
Belay my last. I should say I’m sorry if I wrote anything that could be interpreted as being racial or demeaning.
I meant no harm. Sorry.
Eagle Beak got it right. A very well said.
I read it, Eagle B. You’re saying that draftees are not cooperative and more likely to be insubordinate. Sounds reasonable to me.
No harm, no foul.
P-Mom no doubt is reacting to some people who use code for their racism, but this isn’t one of those times.
What is hurting us all is that we have a crazy man in the White House, who was never meant to hold that office. The job is away over his head and he lacks the basic intelligence needed to even come close to the Presidency of the United States.
He was Governor of my State of Texas and I had no idea he was as unbalanced as he is.
I helped to elect him, and I’m shocked every time he opens his mouth or takes an action.
I apologize to you all.
Ed- Well said. I was born and lived in Texas awhile, and can relate to your statement.
What is hurting us all is that we have a crazy man in the White House, who was never meant to hold that office. Ed Friedemann
I was going to stop with my post on the draft, and probably should have.
But I stumbled on this blog a few months back and posted some strong words that ticked people off. My concern then, is my concern now: It’s not just the president. And I really don’t care what your politics are republican or democrat. It takes congress too. I got worked up because although I no longer serve, I serve the service and know people directly affected by the war. I don’t claim to know the answer nor what/who is right.
But I think our country should take a checkup from the neckup on when we commit troops to war. Review the actions of all levels of government: president, congress, CIA, FBI, whomever. All of them played a role. What went wrong (not looking for the damn bush answer here), how did it progress to that point, what could have happened/intervened to prevent it.
How did we get here? Is not just blaming one person (I don’t mean to blame anyone). I’m afraid if that’s all we do and put it behind us (if it ever finishes), then we are subject to repeat it all over again.
I don’t think we should commit American troops unless America is directly threatened or attacked. I think it’s high time to bring em home from all Europe and Okinawa/Japan, Korea. Not isolationist, but they aren’t really a deterent are they anymore?
Anyway, it is so easy to just blame the President. We should have a checklist for “Going to War”. Debate it publicly, adopt it, and follow it.
I don’t want anyone to die in a war that later is called, “lost or unnecessary” again.
How do we STOP that?
Eagle Beak, I fully concur in the sentiments you expressed so eloquently in your 3:07 PM post concerning where we are, and how to avoid any more troops dying in wars that are called “lost or unnecessary”.
I don’t want anyone to die in a war that later is called, “lost or unnecessary” again.How do we STOP that?Posted by: Eagle Beak
Step one: We are not the policemen of the world.
Eagle Beak
Though the nature of “war” and weaponry has changed the need for it, I think the answer you may be seeking is to be found in the federalist papers of the debate which brought about our Constitution.
Those ‘founding fathers’ understood things about us modern men, which we perhaps might not be considering about ourselves.
Those men understood the relationship of a people and their government and a country’s relationship to the world.
If we follow the checks and balances built into that constitution, we’ll do just fine.
Our current situation is a result of not doing that.
Here’s a link to an opinion written in 1979 about the question of the 13th Amendment. Very interesting reading!http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_140b.html
Eagle Beak
The next problem is the multi ownership of newspapers and other news outlets.
A “free press” must not be under the thumb of its owners opinion.
Editorial Boards and news outlets have an obligation to be able to speak freely and present bothsides of issues.
They need to able to debate freely.
I would rather see them subsidized than cave-in the either market forces or special interests.
The People can sort out the truth if they can hear it, see it, or read it { they also need the lies }.
Eagle Beak, if you were looking for response, you got it. You make a lot of good points. But the fact remains we were buffaloed into this war. Afghanistan I could see. They had OBL, we wanted him, they wouldn’t hand him over. But Iraq….
Maybe we need to repeal the War Powers Act. If we’re going to go to war, make every SOB in Congress vote on a declaration of war. Letting one man, in this case Bush, have the power to start a war is just crazy.
Some make a huge point about how Democrats voted. With the mood the country was in, to have voted NO would have gotten them run out of the country on a rail. That doesn’t excuse cowardice. But that’s the problem in DC, isn’t it?
It’s all about getting reelected, not representing the people in this nation. By the people for the people? BS!
I want my damn country back!
There really wasn’t much debate about invading Iraq. Before the AUMF was passed, Bush swore up and down that this wasn’t a declaration of war, he said he needed the AUMF to prevent war. Anyone who tried to debate war was shouted down for not showing a “united front” to disarm Saddam. After the invasion any attempt at debate was met with, “Whether or not you think it was the right thing to do , we’re there now and need to support the mission.”
Consider this: If in 2002 Bush had told the American people, “Even if there are no WMD, invading is still the right thing to do,” do you think the AUMF would have passed?
He said it repeatedly after we invaded, but not once before. Why not.
XXX, the California delegation voted NO. We can’t be blamed if you guys didn’t listen to us.
Eagle Beak, after your explanation on the swimming comment, I retract my question. Thanks for clearing it up.
And you’ve more than redeemed yourself with your 3:07 post. Well said.
I think when many say “Bush”, they mean the entire administration. Congress has been called out on it, too. The lack of communication between the “bureaus” will, hopefully, be corrected. But you’re right. The entire fiasco needs to be addressed from the bottom up, not to point fingers, but to correct the wrongs and not repeat them.
XXX, the California delegation voted NO. We can’t be blamed if you guys didn’t listen to us.
Posted by: leftcoaster | September 28, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Hells bells leftcoaster, we’re a red state. What did you expect?
But Cali has my respect for not letting Augustus Stupidus herd you into a stupid decision.
Saddam is gone and we’re paying Blackwater thugs to murder Iraqis for what reason?
China is now holding 2 trillion dollars worth of American Bonds.
The draft certainly didn’t keep us out of Vietnam, but it did resonate with the anti-war movement.The problem with an all-volunteer military is that those signing bonuses start to look awfully small against a background of bodybags and lost limbs.If we do have a draft, it should include everyone, men and women alike, and give no deferments to children of elected officials. Only if they’re willing to put their children on the front lines alongside everyone else’s will it be fair.
Jed
What does a snowball in Hell and a draft have in common?
“Roosevelt would have had probably had to conduct a “poll” to see if he could declare war on Japan“.
Kansas I will have to call you on that one, now it is true that the general isolationism that the country had caused many to think the war in Europe was not our affair. Because Hitler had not directly attacked us. Japan was a totally different affair so there is a comparison between 9-11 and 12-7.
But even the threat of Hitler was more of a justification and clear and present danger to the United States. Then the case against Saddam and for an invasion of Iraq, Saddam was not sinking our supply ships or menacing our coast with U-boats. Even the rumor that Saddam was preparing to attack the U.S. using remote control planes has been proven a wild tale and not to have any creditably to begin with.
If you will recall, Bush caught not grief from the actions in Afghanistan even the Middle eastern countries including Iran supported that action. No one was saying he should have taken a poll or answer for anyone’s permission.
But as Long John Krauthhammer said, “ Afghanistan was the wrong war, there was nothing to win. No oil, they had no infrastructure and the people were not educated.Now Iraq is the right war to be fighting, we win and there is oil and a educated people there”. Every time I think about the day I watched him saying that is seems there should have been a “Arrr Matey” somewhere in his statement. And that is how the Neo-conservative mind works, I do not believe that is how your mind works. As much as I find reason to disagree at time. I think you heart is at the end of the day in the right place.
I question Iraq and have from shortly after the invasion as I grew to learn more who’s idea it was and what they did to bring it about. We must win there, not for Oil or because this country should be an empire. But it is time we define a real “win” and end this mistake.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
So is this their new plan to save themselves before the elections?
Great, go with it. Whatever it takes to get us out of that mess. If the Dems won’t stand up and do it, at least let the ones who got us into it get us out.
But ya still gotta love how they’re going to let Bush finish out his term till they end it. Wonder how many more men and women will die while we wait for politics. Clock’s a tickin.
The “win” is to leave, now. No more American lives and no more American money.
The “sky” will not fall.
Note: When I flew my first airplane, the instructor told me to let-go of the stick. He said: This airplane knows how to fly, but you sure don’t, so if you’ll just let-go of the stick, it will right itself and I let-go of the stick, and it did right itself.
After that, the plane and I got along just fine.
Instead of a draft why not make it a requirement for all to serve thier country in some way or another. For every year served one year education (college or tech) paid for by government. Many countries (Isreal) require military service. For those who are contentious objectors (proven by religous affiliation) require service in the peace core.
Today,
Our regular active duty army is too small to handle the needs of NATO + Iraq+Afganistan+ whatever might come up.
The Guard and Reserve are no longer, they are just rotationg active duty.
We hare “outsourcing” to “security” firms such as Blackwater because we can’t do it with our own active duty people.
We need a draft to increase the available numbers so our fighting men are actually able to fight.
Those of us who went through the Draft in the 70’s appreciate what we have, probably because we understand what it takes to be a free country.
The majority of the young people today are soft and take everything that is basic to our existance as the USA for granted.
majority of the young people today are soft and take everything that is basic to our existance as the USA for granted.
Posted by: we need the draft
I disagree with most of what you posted, but I’ll only say this. Your last comment is no different than comments made by every senior generation on it’s junior.
Great idea, Sheryl!
Let’s start with the members of Congress . . .
I love the way people who never had to serve their country are enraptured with the idea of volunteering recent college grads to do it.
It’s a great idea, as long as THEY don’t have to do it and some kid has to do it.
Real nice.
Said it months ago. The next time we declare war on someone several things are set into motion.
1. A military and civilian draft begins, everyone under 25 (sounds like a good number). You can choose 3 yrs in the army or 5 years working in a hospital or other form of community service, with wage similar to those in the service.
2. An immediate freeze on all wages and salaries.
3. Rationing of war critical materials begins.
Good idea, Ken. I’ll bet we’d get a lot more selective about where we stick our nose.
Said it months ago. The next time we declare war on someone several things are set into motion.
Posted by: ken
It went over like a wet noodle last time too. It is sometimes a good thing that unexperienced people do not make the decisions.
1. Let’s be ready next time.
a. First, lets form a commission or whatever to examine how we went to war, and ways to prevent it. (above posts)b. In the late 1980’s and finally in 1990’s when we reduced our active divisions – there was a conscience decision to beef up and rely on the reserve component(s) to lower active military costs. We need to re-examine that in light of recent media attention on the poor guys/girls ordered to war who only signed on as weekend warriors. To include how they got screwed on loans/insurance/jobs. Fix that and decide if that is still doable.c. Some of us remember the goal of fighting 2.5 wars. We need to decide as a nation – what our proper active duty strength should be in light of the new media and how it makes it clear the great suffering long deployments have on our military men and women (although those that have served laugh as we have always known).
2. Wage and salary controls are as fashionable as Jimmy Carter. What is the purpose? And what is the need? There isn’t any that I can see.
3. Rationing in the past came about based upon need. Only if there is a “need” to ration would you ever even consider imposing it. Otherwise, libs like you would scream bloody murder. But more importantly, you don’t ration to prove a point or force a belief on citizens. You only do it if it is needed. Otherwise, you are brain washing, and we don’t want that, do we?
I think the idea is that if everyone had to sacrifice equally in order to go to war, then we probably wouldn’t.It’s too easy for people to detach from what’s going on in Iraq because they don’t have to be involved unless they want to be.
Not having an idiot like Dubya in the White House is what would keep us out of wars! A draft will only amplify the current problem of the lower and middle class being unequally put in harm’s way. Only an idiot would think that a draft would help. Only an idiot would vote for a hawk like Dubya…
A “Hawk?”
What we really need is a pay as you go (to war), no more passing it off on future decisions. The politicians (and in particular the president) would think twice if a war premium tax had to be paid by the populace to fund the war. If it’s not worth the additional sacrifice by the public, it certainly isn’t worth the lives of our military!
Well it looks as if Saddam Hussein was willing to surrender Iraq and go live in Egypt provided he was allowed to take $1 billion with him. Bush gave him 48 hours for he and his sons to leave and he agreed.
Bush lied and didn’t give him the opportunity and invaded anyway. So once again it was revealed that the war wasn’t about WMD (since it was already known Iraq didn’t have any) and wasn’t about overthrowing Saddam (since he was prepared to leave). Nope, the entire invasion was about oil in violation of international laws governing warfare.
Yup, ol George Bush is a war criminal. How do the Republicans here feel about being accomplices just as the Nazi party members were accomplices to Hitler’s regime and his war crimes?
The answer to that is YES it probably would have the effect of making wars less desirable to Americans if we knew OUR kids might have to go and fight them. But that does not mean I would be for it. A draft is no different than slavery. As a father to teenagers, I would publicly protest and raise hell and do my best to end the career of any politician pushing such garbage. Let the folks who want to fight wars fight them. Let the folks that want to become college educated professionals do that. It is a free country- or supposed to be anyway.
And the answer to that question is not only NO but HELL F*&K NO! I am not sending any of my kids to this war or any war. I served in the USAF in a different time and day. Military service in the 70s and 80s was a good thing. But I would tell my kids to run the other way when a recruiter shows up. In the end it would be up to them but it is not something I would ever encourage. I didn’t spend all these years of blood, sweat and tears seeing to it that they got a decent education to hand them over to Bush and Halliburton to get killed in some bullshit war that has nothing to do with the freedom, security or future of this country.
Veitnam was a bullshit war too. As much as this one in Iraq if not more so. When I looked at all the names on that wall in D.C. including my 1st cousin I felt more pissed off than sad. God knows alot of these guys would have been pretty decent people and contributed to the country had they been allowed to live their full lives.
“”"What is hurting us all is that we have a crazy man in the White House, who was never meant to hold that office. The job is away over his head and he lacks the basic intelligence needed to even come close to the Presidency of the United States.
He was Governor of my State of Texas and I had no idea he was as unbalanced as he is.
I helped to elect him, and I’m shocked every time he opens his mouth or takes an action.”"”
I never would have voted for that snake. I saw him for the snake he was long ago. I voted for his father once and I am sorry I did that (but Dukakis was such a fake and an idiot).
to hand them over to Bush and Halliburton to get killed in some bullshit war that has nothing to do with the freedom, security or future of this country.
Posted by: Kev
Well it is sad Kev, but it looks like you will be handing your children over to Hillary Clinton to support the war. She has pledged to keep US Troops there at least until 2013.
Sorry about that. Someone’s kids have to die, before she can bring the rest home.
“”"”Well it is sad Kev, but it looks like you will be handing your children over to Hillary Clinton to support the war. She has pledged to keep US Troops there at least until 2013.
Sorry about that. Someone’s kids have to die, before she can bring the rest home.”"”"
I am not supporting Hillary in the primary. I hope she is not the nominee.
And I am not handing them over to Hillary either. There are more than enough folks out here who want to go to Iraq and fight. The fact that the military is rejecting 3/4ths of the applicant pool tells me they are doing something wrong. There can not be that many folks unqualified to join the Army. Back in the 70s the Army would sign up anything that could slither through the doors of the recruiting office.
Army is pretty strict today, they expect everyones neck to be a certain circumfrence.
Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting
By LIZETTE ALVAREZPublished: February 14, 2007Correction Appended
The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
During that time, the Army has employed a variety of tactics to expand its diminishing pool of recruits. It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join, and loosened weight and age restrictions.
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.
The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.
Waivers for less serious crimes like traffic offenses and drug use have dropped or remained stable.
The Army enlisted 69,395 men and women last year.
While soldiers with criminal histories made up only 11.7 percent of the Army recruits in 2006, the spike in waivers raises concerns about whether the military is making too many exceptions to try to meet its recruitment demands in a time of war. Most felons, for example, are not permitted to carry firearms, and many criminals have at some point exhibited serious lapses in discipline and judgment, traits that are far from ideal on the battlefield.
The military automatically excludes people who have committed certain crimes. They include drug traffickers, recruits who have more than one felony on their record or people who have committed sexually violent crimes. A felony is defined as a crime that carries a sentence of a year or more in prison……..
Here’s the site if you want to read the rest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html
The Army never rejected people for traffic or minor offenses when I was in the USAF. Nor did the USAF because they would have rejected me because I was under a 2 year license no license probation from juvenile court. And I had been in trouble with the law as a kid a few times. And I revealed all of it on my application and the recruiter said that it would be no problem and it wasn’t.
When I went to signed up I put down that I had been in trouble with the law when I was 16, but was not convicted of anything. I was sent to Ks. City to take tests and while I was taking the test someone came and pulled me out of the room and told me they wouldn’t take me because I have been arrested. The funny part of this story was about a year later I got a letter from the Army telling me to try again.
Now this was back in ‘64 and I am a woman. I heard it was harder for woman to get in back then.
I am not supporting Hillary in the primary. I hope she is not the nominee.
Posted by: Kev
When exactly is there a primary in Kansas Kev?
How else do you want me to say it? I am not inferring anything racial. Call them dark green Marines. But many could not swim. I didn’t mean anything by my statement.
I sit and work with african Americans, and have worked with many different nationalities. In fact, my buddy sitting next to me who is buying the brewski tonight with us is, black.
Sorry if you took it that way.
Posted by: Eagle Beak | September 28, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Grovel, boy, grovel! You can’t speak of racial realities here unless you start your post with…”I am not a racist but…”. If you don’t you will be denounced by guilt ridden “White” liberal aholes like capn, rox, et al.
Attitudes like yours, Kev, is exactly why we need a draft. When everybody has the same chance of losing their child, brother, sister, mom, or dad..then we won’t get involved in wasteful, useless, and illegal wars..because Americans won’t stand for it. It’s only because we don’t have to sacrifice unless we want to that we’re in Iraq in the first place. Because there isn’t a draft, then the “powers that be” allow the manipulation of the poor and vulnerable to to fight their war, and the rest of us are safe.
Hillary will get the nomination, and the Republicans will get the white house again…and I hope to hell I’m wrong.
“it looks like you will be handing your children over to Hillary Clinton to support the war. She has pledged to keep US Troops there at least until 2013.”=============================
I honestly wish people would learn how to listen, and READ… Hillary, who is not my favorite choice of nominees, has NOT said that she would keep Troops in Iraq until 2013… She said in the debate, like other candidates, that it is impossible to predict what will be handed over to them in January, 2009, when the Dems take over the White House… Thus, if BushCo screws up things even more than they are, it might not be possible to GET troops out before 2013…
Thats a LOT different than saying she pledged to keep troops in Iraq until 2013….
Remember the question asked by Russert….
So Hillary “Her Royal Highness” can’t predict what will happen in 2013 with the troops, but she can emphatically state to organizations like Move dot SorosPork that she’ll stop the War immediately when she becomes President.
So which is it?
Gonna butter one side or both? :)
On the subject of women and the draft. Yup, you’d have to draft them too. But I’ll take it further.
It’s been rightly said that young men fight the wars of old men. It has ever been thus. Well I don’t know what age limit was in place on the draft (35 I think) But why would we not draft men and women into their 50’s and 60’s? Not all military duty involves combat. These older folk would be useful in clerical and logistics work. Draft them too and you even further bring people to think twice about military obligations of foreign policy.
Well it looks as if Saddam Hussein was willing to surrender Iraq and go live in Egypt provided he was allowed to take $1 billion with him. Bush gave him 48 hours for he and his sons to leave and he agreed.
Bush lied and didn’t give him the opportunity and invaded anyway. So once again it was revealed that the war wasn’t about WMD (since it was already known Iraq didn’t have any) and wasn’t about overthrowing Saddam (since he was prepared to leave). Nope, the entire invasion was about oil in violation of international laws governing warfare.
Yup, ol George Bush is a war criminal. How do the Republicans here feel about being accomplices just as the Nazi party members were accomplices to Hitler’s regime and his war crimes?
Posted by: Doug | September 28, 2007 at 11:41 PM
About six weeks before we invaded, when I saw that war was an inevitability, I came up with the idea that I thoght worthy of passing on to John Kerry ( I stated that he could take credit for it), who I thought was going to be the challenger to bush. I suggested he recommend that Saddam be given an ultimatum to abdicate his presidency and receive sanctuary in another country. I thought there was a long shot that many lives could be spared if he took the offer. I sent the suggestion to Kerry, ( I told Kerry that if I didn’t hear from him within a couple of weeks, I’d send the suggestion to Bush. I got a response back from Kerry he gave some long winded respons, but the nexus was that he supported action against Iraq (mush have been when he was for the war before he was against it), so I sent my suggestion to the majority leader of the senate, bush, cheney,(hell, I even sent it to cheney and bush’s wives!) to the speaker of the house, and to the minority leader of the house, believe I also sent it to Collin Powell. I never received a response from anyone but Kerry! I thought there was a good chance that bush might offer the deal to saddam, if for nothing else than to look like he’d made every conceivable attemp to avert a war.
I don’t know if my suggestion ever reached bush, but I think it surely must have, as that was what was done, and I damn sure tried!
Over the last year or so, I’ve had to talk about half a dozen of my granddaughter’s friends out of signing up to be cannon fodder for Bush’s war. Going to war for oil, now that the righteous reasons turned out to have been fabricated is no more than state-sanctioned theft, and every gallon of gas you dump into that SUV comes with innocent Iraqi bodies attached to it.