"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:11:46 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.
1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.
I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and
sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.
Horse feathers.
Which part?

The first part. I don't think it makes any difference.

If only because of the Pentagon's propensity to hand out cushy jobs to
sons of prominent people - like Lt. Gore for example.

I agree with the second. :)

Oh, we'd surely need a mechanism to ensure the sons and daughters of
rich Republicans were killed or maimed in appropriate numbers.

Say what?

Now you can see where Harry Krause's mind is. He is a sick man.

P Fritz wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.

1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.


I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.

Horse feathers.

Harry is just illustratig his total lack of understanding of the military.

And how many years did YOU serve, there, Fritzy??

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Horse feathers.

Which part?


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The first part. I don't think it makes any difference.

If only because of the Pentagon's propensity to hand out cushy jobs to
sons of prominent people - like Lt. Gore for example.


How was he given a cushy job? Unlike many others, he actually *went* to
Viet Nam. And he also had the guts to be an official conscientious
objector, which limited the number & type of jobs the Army could give him.
There are not many worse spots they could legally have put him in.

That's aside from the fact that conscientious objectors are NOT popular in
the military, for obvious reasons, and life as one is fairly miserable.

Rancor against Al Gore is IMHO pretty much proof of a severely biased
attitude, and shows that one's opinions are chiefly formed by the farther
right wing propaganda.

How about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

Page not found. Old article?

I wouldn't hesitate to advise any grandchildren of mine to join the
military if they asked me for my advice.

If they asked you why you recommend it, especially at this specific point
in
history, what would you tell them?


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote
I would start out by explaining that life is an adventure.

Ha ha ha! Yes it sure is. Even when one does not join the military.

... Everyday
is a new series of events that lead to in multiple directions. Take
advantage of the training and skills offered by the military in
exchange for adding to your store of skills and ability so that
whatever direction your life takes, you are a little more prepared for
it.


That is a valid point for many young people, but not for others. For
example, for a young person intent on becoming a doctor, joining up has
been a good way of gaining some financial security while struggling up
that ladder, and because of the military's vested interest in having
good doctors on hand, it has also been a way past a door that might have
otherwise been closed.

All changed now.

I would say that you can pick what you want to do - Aircraft,
electronics, yada, yada, yada. If you really want to have some fun,
shoot for the elite specialties. Hell, even those pussy Navy types
can do good things for you.


OTOH the Navy doesn't give you all the fun of visiting exotic & foreign
lands, meeting the people, and killing them. And you don't get to sleep
in the swamp.


I would tell them that the discipline and camaraderie will stay with
them forever and give them something to fall back on when times get
tough.


Self discipline & focus is a big benefit that military training and
experience can offer. But again, not all kids need this, not all would
benefit from it. It's quite likely that a kid with some minor discipline
or behavioural 'issues' might end up having really serious problems.



I would say that yes, the chances of being killed by bad guys is
higher than being killed driving across town, but if you pay
attention, trust your buddies and follow the lead of your Senior NCOs
- stay sharp, you'll be just fine.


It improves the odds (and is a useful skill to carry forward in life),
but it's hardly a guarantee. Suicide bombers and IEDs don't care.


Last, I would say that will be bad times, but they will be more than
offset by the good times and those will be more than worthy of
remembering.


Doug Kanter wrote:
All true (almost), but to my son, I've said that if you're going to get your
guts blown out, make sure it's for a good cause.


"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our
form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences
between us and our enemies."
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and
nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union
address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005



The U.S. military has always been at least on the fringe of being a
mercenary force used to gouge greater profits out of exploited foreign
economies for politically favored companies. This was true in George
Washington's time, it's true now. There have been a fair number of times
when this has been only a slight tendency, then there have been times
(like now) when it is pretty much the primary mission.

I knew this when I joined up. I'd make sure that any young person who
asked my advice had a reasonable knowledge of history, as well as
knowledge of the nature of the beast to which he was offering his throat.

DSK

How about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html


Doug Kanter wrote:
Page not found. Old article?


Oops... it was a couple weeks after Katrina... maybe the "liberal biased
media" yanked it... the story was about how Al & Tipper organized &
financed an evacuation of a number of critical patients from N'awluns.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
How about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html


Doug Kanter wrote:
Page not found. Old article?

Oops... it was a couple weeks after Katrina... maybe the "liberal biased
media" yanked it... the story was about how Al & Tipper organized &
financed an evacuation of a number of critical patients from N'awluns.

DSK


Those assholes! :-)

wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Harry Krause

Oh, we'd surely need a mechanism to ensure the sons and daughters of
rich Republicans were killed or maimed in appropriate numbers.


Say what?

Overstated on my part. I should have said EXPOSED to the same
possibilites of being shot or maimed as the sons and daughters of the
mostly low-income families whose kids now serve. I don't want any of
them killed or maimed, but...if someone has to drive an unarmed gasoline
truck, let it be a US senator's son.


Bull. You said what you meant and only backed off when you were challenged.

" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Harry Krause

Oh, we'd surely need a mechanism to ensure the sons and daughters of
rich Republicans were killed or maimed in appropriate numbers.


Say what?

Overstated on my part. I should have said EXPOSED to the same
possibilites of being shot or maimed as the sons and daughters of the
mostly low-income families whose kids now serve. I don't want any of
them killed or maimed, but...if someone has to drive an unarmed gasoline
truck, let it be a US senator's son.


Bull. You meant what you said and only backed off when you were
challenged.



Oops. Slight edit.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:29:11 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:11:46 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.
1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.
I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.
Horse feathers.
Which part?

The first part. I don't think it makes any difference.

If only because of the Pentagon's propensity to hand out cushy jobs to
sons of prominent people - like Lt. Gore for example.

I agree with the second. :)

Oh, we'd surely need a mechanism to ensure the sons and daughters of
rich Republicans were killed or maimed in appropriate numbers.

Say what?

A little sick...

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

Rancor against Al Gore is IMHO pretty much proof of a severely biased
attitude, and shows that one's opinions are chiefly formed by the
farther right wing propaganda.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Quit getting your boxers in a bunch Doug - he was what he was - a son
of a Southern Senator who was tossed into the military for no other
reason than the fact that it wouldn't look good for the future Senator
Gore to have been a CO. He was given a nice safe job where he couldn't
get himself into trouble and it worked exactly as planned.

Like it or not, that's exactly the way it was.


Actually, you're very wrong. Look up the facts, you won't believe me. Al
Gore's father, the Senator, did NOT want Al to go into the Army and was
on record as being vocally against the war from pretty early on.

I think it's likely that Gore did get some preferential treatment. I
also think it's likely that he encountered a heck of a lot of rancor &
abuse from guys who thought he was 1- a pussy for being a conscientious
objector in the first place and 2- a traitor for his father's public
stance against the war.

So in short, since you've fallen hook line & sinker for the right-wing
propaganda (which they've spent millions of dollars on, so maybe it's
nice that they didn't waste all that money), I hope that you'll never
ever try to connect the dots. It will make you dissatisfied with your
opinions & statements.

BTW becoming a corpsman was a good option for draftee consientious
objectors, but you had to agree to a longer term of service than college
grad officer types like Gore were obligated for. If Gore had become a
corpsman, there really wouldn't be as much room for criticism, would there?

And a lot of 'pecker checkers' got hassled, big time, for being cont obj'rs.

DSK