I think you should volunteer immediately.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:15:11 GMT, felton said:

I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few?

Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that our present mix of
active
duty troops and national guard is the result of a deliberate policy change
made for that very purpose after appraising the loss of support for the
Vietnam war. The problem was an undue concentration of lower income and
black soldiers among the draftees, with the middle and upper class whites
wangling deferments. (Remember that Howard Dean had such a back problem he
had to spend the war years skiing in Vermont.) The determination was made
that substantial numbers of the guard should be involved in any future war
in order to bring involvement to Main Street.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

It would take an act of Congress. I believe Rangle (sp?) has introduced
such legislation.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

BB

No, it isn't a fact. You're just being an ass. Go away.

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
He has the right to protest, but he doesn't have right to hang
out with whomever he wants... now that's quite a statement.

I did not think the war in Vietnam was fought correctly.
But I respect the people that had to fight.

I would never support anyone that aided the enemy. Hanoi Janes
actions was a big moral booster to the VC. Which killed American.
THATS A FACT.

Kerry sided with Jane for political gains and said screwed the troops!

Capt. American

He bases this on his lack of intelligence.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
Kerry sided with Jane for political gains and said screwed the troops!


On what do you base this? That he attended the same rally as her, 2 years
before she went to Hanoi? You're going to have to do a lot better than
that.

Bs. Kerry never said "screw the troops."

"The Count" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
Kerry sided with Jane for political gains and said screwed the troops!


On what do you base this? That he attended the same rally as her, 2
years
before she went to Hanoi? You're going to have to do a lot better than
that.
Try Kerry's testimony before Congress. It's public record.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Well, let's do the numbers... 600 per year X 10 years (according to the
long term commitment Rummy's been talking about = 6000 American
Soldier deaths + 3 x 6000 injured = 18,000 people dead or injured,
18,000 x 3 (people in each family) = 54,000 American lives screwed
up + x number of Iraq civilians + x number of foreign troop casualties.

Not a great number.

I wasn't suggesting that any number is a good number. Currently I
think the heat is on to do something prior to the election because
those WMDs didn't show up and all we seem to have managed to do is get
our hands firmly on the tar baby. It may be too early to say how this
area will be stabilized, but looking around in that part of the world
I would have to say that a Western style democracy friendly to the USA
seems an unlikley outcome. This whole thing has been a mystery to me.


"felton" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Feb 2004 05:01:37 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:

It is more than a bit amusing that the right wind whackos have chosen
to make Viet Nam an issue,.

Try to keep up with current events Bub. Kerry's people started this
thing.
Funny thing is however Kerry's handelers arn't talking about what Kerry
did
after he got out.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Yes, it was the Democratic Party Chairman who seems to have started
that "deserter" business. That whole issue does seem like a waste of
time and energy. I well remember the days of the draft lottery, and I
don't remember anyone hoping for a low number I was referring to
this goofy Kerry/Jane Fonda balloon that Rush is floating. The only
real connection I can see to the Viet Nam days is that I question the
thinking that has gotten us involved in Iraq. The good news is that I
don't think we will be there for 10 years at a cost of over 50,000
Americans, but for me, 600 is too many if we didn't have a justifiable
reason to go. Not to mention the huge expenditure of our tax dollars.

I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:46:05 -0600, Dave wrote:


Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that our present mix of active
duty troops and national guard is the result of a deliberate policy change
made for that very purpose after appraising the loss of support for the
Vietnam war. The problem was an undue concentration of lower income and
black soldiers among the draftees, with the middle and upper class whites
wangling deferments. (Remember that Howard Dean had such a back problem he
had to spend the war years skiing in Vermont.) The determination was made
that substantial numbers of the guard should be involved in any future war
in order to bring involvement to Main Street.

Seriously, this is not a flame, but the above doesn't make sense to me.
I've always thought that the active/guard mix is a direct result of an all
volunteer military. It's kept lean and mean during peacetime
necessitating guard usage during a war. I would also suggest a draft
brings in a wider cross-section of the public than an all volunteer
service. Middle and upper class whites may no longer be wangling
deferments, neither to they tend to enlist.

Probably smoking dope with Jane.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:32 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I think you should volunteer immediately.

Thanks for the suggestion, Jonathan, but I did my stint over 35 years ago.
At this age I doubt they'd even accept me if I volunteered.

This seems a sensitive topic with you. Is there something you'd like to
tell
us about what you were doing back then?



Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

I know. I wasn't implying that. I was just trying to add some
numbers to what shouldn't be that murky of a situation.

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Well, let's do the numbers... 600 per year X 10 years (according to the
long term commitment Rummy's been talking about = 6000 American
Soldier deaths + 3 x 6000 injured = 18,000 people dead or injured,
18,000 x 3 (people in each family) = 54,000 American lives screwed
up + x number of Iraq civilians + x number of foreign troop casualties.

Not a great number.

I wasn't suggesting that any number is a good number. Currently I
think the heat is on to do something prior to the election because
those WMDs didn't show up and all we seem to have managed to do is get
our hands firmly on the tar baby. It may be too early to say how this
area will be stabilized, but looking around in that part of the world
I would have to say that a Western style democracy friendly to the USA
seems an unlikley outcome. This whole thing has been a mystery to me.


"felton" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Feb 2004 05:01:37 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:

It is more than a bit amusing that the right wind whackos have
chosen
to make Viet Nam an issue,.

Try to keep up with current events Bub. Kerry's people started
this
thing.
Funny thing is however Kerry's handelers arn't talking about what
Kerry
did
after he got out.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Yes, it was the Democratic Party Chairman who seems to have started
that "deserter" business. That whole issue does seem like a waste of
time and energy. I well remember the days of the draft lottery, and I
don't remember anyone hoping for a low number I was referring to
this goofy Kerry/Jane Fonda balloon that Rush is floating. The only
real connection I can see to the Viet Nam days is that I question the
thinking that has gotten us involved in Iraq. The good news is that I
don't think we will be there for 10 years at a cost of over 50,000
Americans, but for me, 600 is too many if we didn't have a justifiable
reason to go. Not to mention the huge expenditure of our tax dollars.

I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:53:24 -0600, Dave wrote:

But if firemen,
policemen and other civilians would get called up in time of emergency the
isolation of the military would be reduced.

OK, understood.



I seem to recall seeing figures on this, but can't recall what they showed.
I do recall vividly that before the volunteer army there was a great hue and
cry from the usual suspects about how our wars were fought on the backs of
the po' folks.

Probably true then, probably true now. Unless military service is
universal, it will never be truly equitable.