The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms . .
..and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.

M.

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

"Michael" wrote in message ...
The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?

You're still a bit light on the bigotry, misogyny and theft masquerading as
libertarianism. You have the lying part down pretty good, but you have a ways
to go before you're a true Republican.

Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is either a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they didn't) or a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth of the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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

Not that well... morals... hmmm... like Bush's daughters getting busted.
Or, Gingrich telling his wife in the hospital that he's dumping her? Or,
maybe it's Rush's multiple marriages. Or, possibly Hatch releasing
classified information when he wasn't supposed to. Or, Ashcrap "anointing"
himself with oil when he was picked to be AG (well, that's not amoral,
just bizarre). Or, Henry Hyde's mistress. Oh, I know what you mean...
Bill and Hillary actually raising an intelligent, thoughful daughter inside
the political fishbowl.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST
NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

You shouldn't be surprised. He was advocating a non-deferment draft, wherein
those who have privilege aren't exempt. Seems right to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is either
a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they didn't) or
a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth of
the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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

The missing link here is trying to equate modern day professional soldiers
with Viet-Nam era draftees. Two different animules. Today's soldiers are
there for one reason and one reason only. Money. Take away the pay and the
benefits and see how many stand tall for first formation next Monday. Sure
it's nice to have some heart string tugging sort of reasons and it works
well in movies.In real life the reasons soldiers fight, is the same as the
reason NFL linebackers play football. They support the team not the owners.
They work for money first, applause is a distant second. Same way it's been
for thousands of years.

I've noticed this inability of people to get over the Viet-Nam Syndrome. I
guess the guilt trip is strong and well it should be for the way soldiers
were treated back then. But you should reserve paybacks on that guilt for
those of that era. Today's military is highly trained, highly motivated and
highly paid professionals. Not one was drafted against his or her will.

And most of them hold most of you, who worry so much about not much, in
amused contempt. They don't work for you, they work for the government.
They don't care about Mom, apple pie, and the cornfields of Iowa, they care
about their fellow soldiers, their unit, their equipment, their job and
their paychecks. They go where sent and do the job they are paid to do, be
it Afghanistan, Iraq or Iowa.

And the word national in National Guard ought to speak volumes.

By the way. The service members who guard us on the ships transiting and
working in the 'hot spots' of the world range from US Marines to Puerto
Rican National Guard. The soldiers coming back with the returning equipment
were half regulars and half National Guard on extended tours of active duty.
And not one Kerry voter in the bunch.

That's the long way of explaining the word silly to describe the discussion,
and that's being kind.

M.




"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?

Not unless there are major changes in draft exemptions. Some of the serious
reasons the draft was unpopular was it focused on the poor and the
minorities who did not qualify for a multitude of exemptions. In fact it
produced the exact opposite of what you suggest with middle and upper class
whites getting married, going to college, or Russia or whereever.

I still say the draft in and of itself is wrong. But if you have to have it
at least make it somewhat equal and yes that includes women as well. No
reason they should continue to be second class citizens. It's wrong.

If society is worth saving enough will come forward, if enough do not come
forward then the society was not worth saving.

(Or you could just hire a bunch of mercenaries . . .damn . ..that's exactly
what we did isn't it!)

M.




"thunder" wrote in message
news
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.

My last assignment was a National Guard advisor/trainer. One of the things
we checked for was to ensure that no fire, law enforcement, and a few other
professions were in the units as they could not be called up to active duty
in time of war. All of them were discharged honorably. I see now the
Guardsmen on our ship come from exactly those professions so there must have
been some change since '88.

M.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:15:48 -0500, thunder said:

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 understand that it's not just a matter of pure numbers. The plan was to
structure the active force to be deliberately super-lean only in some
areas.
There might be enough people on active duty in absolute numbers, but not
in
sufficient numbers in some specialties, requiring calling up guardsmen in
those specialties. You're right that it was related to the all volunteer
force. The concern was that as we went to an all volunteer force the gulf
between the military and civilians would continue to widen. But if
firemen,
policemen and other civilians would get called up in time of emergency the
isolation of the military would be reduced.

I would also suggest a draft
brings in a wider cross-section of the public than an all volunteer
service.

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. I also recall that among those who couldn't get classified
4F
(this was before the lottery) there was an amazing increase in enrollment
in Ph.D programs in time of war, as well as a rapid expansion of
participation in "critical" jobs such as teaching. And at the time neither
group could be fairly said to be a representative cross-section of the
public.




Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Not to mention a lot of our dregs went to Canada. And still live there.

SV


"Michael" wrote in message
...

minorities who did not qualify for a multitude of exemptions. In fact it
produced the exact opposite of what you suggest with middle and upper
class
whites getting married, going to college, or Russia or whereever.