"Right wingers don't serve but sure do love supporting wars."

[JJC]

Often such accusation is made. "Ohh you support GWOT and our troops, but why don't you man up and serve yourself." It certainly puts civilians into an awkward situation to answer such a question. But is this line of argument credible or logical? Should only those that actually serve be allowed to express support on any given war or military?

[philbob]

Often such accusation is made. "Ohh you support GWOT and our troops, but why don't you man up and serve yourself." It certainly puts civilians into an awkward situation to answer such a question. But is this line of argument credible or logical? Should only those that actually serve be allowed to express support on any given war or military?

It isnt a crediable or logical argument due to the nature of our society the decleration states; life, liberty, and presuit of happiness some choose not to serve that is on them( I personally think the draft needs to be brought back but that is anotehr topic). In retort ask the liberal why they dont goto Darfur or join the Ameri/peace corps in response

[el borracho]

That's up to the individual. I remember an incident in '04, I was stationed in Texas and on my way to base when I stopped for gas and a soda at a mini-mart. A local spotted me in BDU's and slapped me on the back saying "thanks for serving man. I hope we kill every last one of them Iraqis." Well, I appreciate your support for my service, but we're there to help the Iraqis, remember? Another bit of "praise" was a guy seeing me in a parking lot (Georgia, 2005) and yelled "yeah! Go Bush!" I understand my role as a servicemember, but I'm not the president's personal minion. I joined to serve my country, not a particular president. I never voted for the guy or supported any of his policies, so don't act like we're peas in a pod. Basically, a civilian can have their own opinion about matters, but don't act like you speak for the military just because you are conservative.

And it works with liberals too. You'll see a lot of people sitting around Starbucks acting like foreign policy experts when they're only rehashing what they learned last semester in their poly-sci class. If they were so dissatisfied, what did they do to fix it? Our political system is allows plenty of opportunities for a "redress of grievances," but did they take advantage of them?

[budgie]

I agree with Philbob.

Not everyone can serve. I'm deaf in one ear for example. Calling someone a coward for 'supporting' military action they themselves cannot or will not participate in is a superflous as calling Iraq-war detractors ignorant because they haven't BTDT. Our political stances don't necessarily have to be tied to our history of service or lack thereof.

[gaijinsamurai]

In general, it's not a valid argument: too simplistic, and paints a broad brush. That having been said, i know of quite a few chickenhawks who never served. In fairness, I know a lot of left-wing politically correct types who never served, either.

Unfortunately, types like **** Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and a few others have given people who like to use this a little fuel.

[Bro Jangles]

Often such accusation is made. "Ohh you support GWOT and our troops, but why don't you man up and serve yourself." It certainly puts civilians into an awkward situation to answer such a question. But is this line of argument credible or logical? Should only those that actually serve be allowed to express support on any given war or military?
well the negative implies that everyone in the military is a bunch of grass somkin flag burning hippies, which isnt the case. Ive been asked this before, to which i respond, " do you support gay marriage? yes? than why dont you hang out in gay bars?"

[philbob]

In general, it's not a valid argument: too simplistic, and paints a broad brush. That having been said, i know of quite a few chickenhawks who never served. In fairness, I know a lot of left-wing politically correct types who never served, either.

Unfortunately, types like **** Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and a few others have given people who like to use this a little fuel.


for the record, Joe Biden got the same excuse Cheney got.... but yea im all for the draft personally becuase i belive all aspects of our society should pull the weight (including the gay's and senators sons and duaghters....)

Also even though Rush didnt serve he has done some amazing charity work for the families of the fallen, that is alot more relevant and meaningful then the crap Oprah does when she gives her audiance her favriot thing of the month..

[gaijinsamurai]

I've got mixed feelings about a draft.
I think it would benefit society as a whole, but would be detrimental to the military. An all-volunteer, professional military is more disciplined and proficient. But, I think our generation on down (I'm 41) has lost something, since my that of my dad's and granfathers.

[philbob]

I've got mixed feelings about a draft.
I think it would benefit society as a whole, but would be detrimental to the military. An all-volunteer, professional military is more disciplined and proficient. But, I think our generation on down (I'm 41) has lost something, since my that of my dad's and granfathers.

I have mixed feeling as well and I totally concure about the rest of your post Im 24 and have been in this nations greatest fighting force the USMC. But we are loosing our selves and our nation to our self centerdness and it is a damn shame

[el borracho]

I support mandatory service, not necessarily a military draft. There is a plethora of government organizations (many that aren't dangerous) that an individual can donate their time to help. A program that would have young people spend a few months assisting a government agency in a minor role after high school would open a lot of young people's eyes. Of course, this would never go over well in today's society. Americans feel that the forefathers gave them the right to be ignorant and lazy and they are exercising this right at an alarming rate. People will always complain about the government and those in office (in positions big and small) but their ignorance and complacency allows these problems to occur. A devious politician or organization would not be able to function effectively if the general population engaged themselves and held them accountable.

[philbob]

I support mandatory service, not necessarily a military draft. There is a plethora of government organizations (many that aren't dangerous) that an individual can donate their time to help. A program that would have young people spend a few months assisting a government agency in a minor role after high school would open a lot of young people's eyes. Of course, this would never go over well in today's society. Americans feel that the forefathers gave them the right to be ignorant and lazy and they are exercising this right at an alarming rate. People will always complain about the government and those in office (in positions big and small) but their ignorance and complacency allows these problems to occur.

Well if we go down we only have ourselves to blame. I agree with the Mandatory civil and community services but I strongly belive the military draft needs to be part of that, I see part of it as we are also are creating a military class and that is dangerous.

[WarDancer]

"Right wingers don't serve but sure do love supporting wars."

Right wingers dont "support wars" they support the mission of the troops. BIG difference. Libs cant seem to differentiate.

[philbob]

"Right wingers don't serve but sure do love supporting wars."

Right wingers dont "support wars" they support the mission of the troops. BIG difference. Libs cant seem to differentiate.

better yet they tend to understand that the troops signed on to do a job and support them no matter what....

[JJC]

"Right wingers don't serve but sure do love supporting wars."

Right wingers dont "support wars" they support the mission of the troops. BIG difference. Libs cant seem to differentiate.

Some of the liberals(?) that make such accusations have military service from Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. I guess they feel that if you don't serve you should not support government policies that use force because you did not see and experience blood being spilled. If these civilians support the troops it is just "chicken hawk" empty, cheap talk. "You believe in fighting terror go join and not sit on side line and cheer" type of argument. Or if you say that you just morally support the troops and not necessarily every government mission, then they think you're crazy. "How can you support troops that are committing an "unjustified mission.

[Bro Jangles]

Some of the liberals(?) that make such accusations have military service from Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. I guess they feel that if you don't serve you should not support government policies that use force because you did not see and experience blood being spilled. If these civilians support the troops it is just "chicken hawk" empty, cheap talk. "You believe in fighting terror go join and not sit on side line and cheer" type of argument. Or if you say that you just morally support the troops and not necessarily every government mission, then they think you're crazy. "How can you support troops that are committing an "unjustified mission.
these people need to understand that even though we respect what they do, that we dont live in a military controlled country, and that any US citizen gets a say.

[Ordie]

I find that people who have not served in the military tends to be hawkish and pro-war. And the anti-war folks who've never served in the military very militant.

[philbob]

I find that people who have not served in the military tends to be hawkish and pro-war. And the anti-war folks who've never served in the military very militant.

funny how that worksrofl
keep in mind liberalism has killed more people this past century then ever in the history of man.

[Royal]

"Right wingers don't serve but sure do love supporting wars."

Right wingers dont "support wars" they support the mission of the troops. BIG difference. Libs cant seem to differentiate.

Troops don't start wars (except in some parts of Africa p-)) - right (and sometimes so-called left) wingers do. Ergo Right wingers "support wars". Some of them also support the mission and/or the troops. But then so do many moderates/left wingers.

[Britboy]

I find that people who have not served in the military tends to be hawkish and pro-war. And the anti-war folks who've never served in the military very militant.

I can think of a few personalities who've had minimal/no experience of the military, or who have been in cadets or somesuch, who are exactly as you say, very pro-war and mil-centred. Then I think of just about all the blokes I have had the pleasure to work with in a mil capacity, and they seem to be pretty balanced individuals when compared - even during the middle of a platoon attack, or after 10 pints when out on a social (pretty balanced may be a slightly relative term here however! :) ). Of course you get the odd 'characters' when in, but even they almost all seem to be fundamentally decent and good eggs.

Perhaps military service, of any kind, is a moderating factor to human behaviour then. You realise your limitations, but also what you are capable of doing, giving you a sort of tempered confidence. This mindset would only lend itself to a (broadly speaking) centrist outlook politically.

[budgie]

funny how that worksrofl
keep in mind liberalism has killed more people this past century then ever in the history of man.


Nazism, Communism, Stalinism, yes. Liberalism? Oh do please explain enlightened one.

[toad]

Having mandatory service is not productive in my opinion. We have students who would be retarded (slow or limited in their intellectual or emotional development or academic progress) by a wasted year of service. We have college students who are doing amazing, amazing amazing work and it would be wasted on the military.

Like fishing with a net that catches every fish, yet you only want one species. Not very productive. Not optimal.

I've talked with Israeli service members, while there with the Navy, and they have expressed some of the same concern.

Like any job, seek out and recruit and hire those who want to serve and are best suited for the job....don't just rope everyone into it. Those who do not want to be there will just be a drain on those who want to be. Who want to excel.

We wouldn't require a mandatory year of art school....to appreciate arts and humanities. We wouldn't mandate a year of building/constuction/carpentry so they appreciate our physical infrastructure of our cities and towns.

someone said, everyone in the country is lazy and stupid. I think you have a negative attitude or cannot see the amazing things that are happening in private business and colleges...in our government agencies by kids just out of high school and college. I do.
First hand.

Things my father (who served), things I (who served) cannot even dream of accomplishing. Miles and miles ahead of where we would be. I would never slow them down with military service. It would just be silly.

Work smarter, not harder.

It was good for me, but in no way would I cast such a huge net and make such sweeping generalizations that it's good for everyone...or the nation.


/ whole thread is an off base generalization
// means little in substance

[2Sheds_Jackson]

One of the things that sets us apart from the animals is our ability to process abstract concepts that we don't have direct experience with. The other two things are the ability to secure a boat loan, and enjoy Japanese ****. Besides, in a democracy, everybody is entitled to their vote (and opinion) on policy, regardless of their background.

[11 Bravo]

Nazism, Communism, Stalinism, yes. Liberalism? Oh do please explain enlightened one.

Typical you missed that one budgie. Today's liberalism is facist , communist and regressively socialist. But that should not need explaining .

[Baboonass]

That's up to the individual. I remember an incident in '04, I was stationed in Texas and on my way to base when I stopped for gas and a soda at a mini-mart. A local spotted me in BDU's and slapped me on the back saying "thanks for serving man. I hope we kill every last one of them Iraqis." Well, I appreciate your support for my service, but we're there to help the Iraqis, remember? Another bit of "praise" was a guy seeing me in a parking lot (Georgia, 2005) and yelled "yeah! Go Bush!" I understand my role as a servicemember, but I'm not the president's personal minion. I joined to serve my country, not a particular president. I never voted for the guy or supported any of his policies, so don't act like we're peas in a pod. Basically, a civilian can have their own opinion about matters, but don't act like you speak for the military just because you are conservative.

And it works with liberals too. You'll see a lot of people sitting around Starbucks acting like foreign policy experts when they're only rehashing what they learned last semester in their poly-sci class. If they were so dissatisfied, what did they do to fix it? Our political system is allows plenty of opportunities for a "redress of grievances," but did they take advantage of them?



Golden.

You and I see eye to eye about this.

[LazerLordz]

A classic liberal would respect the choice the conservative makes. But classical liberals are as rare as good manners in high school.

[Bia]

Often such accusation is made. "Ohh you support GWOT and our troops, but why don't you man up and serve yourself." It certainly puts civilians into an awkward situation to answer such a question. But is this line of argument credible or logical? Should only those that actually serve be allowed to express support on any given war or military?
It's always been my stance anyone that works/pays into the system that supports a nations military.... they indeed have the right to speak up/speak out. A tiny sliver of what I (and millions of others) earned went into the collective pot to oil the jaws of the war machine.

Unemployed and hippys.... now they should STFU

:P

[dimasorokine]

For those of you who want the draft back: why!? And how would it even work, I mean in a tolorent and multi cultural society full of immigrants isn't over taxing everyone enough?

Your country has evolved, thats not a bad thing.

-Dima

[Baboonass]

oil the jaws of the war machine.






Oh God, I think I just came a little.

[Fiber]

A classic liberal would respect the choice the conservative makes. But classical liberals are as rare as good manners in high school.

I would consider myself a classic liberal. Incidentally, I also had impeccable manners in high school. :)

[Bia]

Oh God, I think I just came a little.
Iron Maiden Lyrics :P

We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
The body bags and little rags of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put the finger right on you.
As the madmen play on words and make us all dance to their song,
To the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun.

[Baboonass]

Iron Maiden Lyrics :P

We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
The body bags and little rags of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put the finger right on you.
As the madmen play on words and make us all dance to their song,
To the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun.

2 minutes to mindnight.

Awsome.


I prefer this.

Propaganda death ensemble
Burial to be
Corpses rotting through the night
In blood laced misery
Scorched earth the policy
The reason for the seige
The pendulum it shaves the blade
The strafing air blood raid

Infiltration push reserves
Encircle the front lines
Supreme art of strategy
Playing on the minds
Bombard till submission
Take all to their graves
Indication of triumph
The number that are dead

[Chorus]
Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

[Chorus]

Be dead friend from above
When darkness falls
Descend into my sights
Your fallen walls
Spearhead break through the lines
Flanked all around
Soldiers of attriction
Forward their ground
Regime prophetic age
Old in its time
Flowing veins run on through
Deep in the Rhine
Center of the web
All battles scored
What is our war crimes
(Era forever more...war)

Propaganda war ensemble
Burial to be
Bones shining in the night
In blood laced misery
Campaign of elimination
Twisted psychology
When victory is to survive
And death is defeat

[Chorus]
Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
When victory is survival
When this end is a slaughter
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

[Britboy]

Mandatory service is not the best idea for warfare. Some wise man once said words to the effect of 'National Service was great for the country, but a disaster for the Army' given the experience of British peacetime conscription.

TBH the military is there to defend the country and its interests, not to right society's wrongs or to be used as a social engineering experiment, trying to produce a New Man.

National Service may have been good in some ways but it is not pertinent to the needs of a standing professional manoeuvrist army. Look at how the Russian Federation wants more kontraktniki and Mobile Forces rather than a 1m conscript Ground Forces and a 20m reserve!

IF mandatory service is decided upon for whatever socio-political reason, the best form of damage limitation in my mind would be to dissociate it from the all-volunteer regular and territorial/reservist forces already existing. Call it the Defence Force or whatever, give them different force structures and different togs to go along with their different role (so Joe Public is not confused whats what), which should be along the lines of Disaster Relief, Crisis Management, other aid to the civil power/public works and Home Defence If The Sh1t Really Hits The Fan. Like a big CCRF/civil defence organisation, but more for the societal reasons of having mandatory service, like the greater cohesion amongst society as seen in Germany/Israel I believe, rather than actually needing millions of serving/call-up-able troops.

If you've got some keen ones who want to get involved with the Army/Navy proper, good on them, but in general, keep the Army/Navy proper separate, as having every chav and ned join up is not good!

Having everyone do 1/2yrs would be a bit of a drain on other people who could be getting on and going places and helping the nation in that way, as toad says, so I would make it a flexible system of service. Something like 6-8 months, including time spent on public works (like Finns can do instead of FDF time), that can be done over a combination of school/sixthform/uni holidays, or in a oner should you wish.

TBH it wouldn't be a bad idea to instill some self-confidence in a lot of disenfranchised pikeys who could probably be quite productive if they got their lives together, a flexible system would hold back our stars less, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have most of the population ready for most eventualities so they won't flap in the slightest problem.

[Hollis]

Edwin Starr wrote, War,

"War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again............."

I tend to agree with him, war is a act of collected insanity or is it. Your walking down the street, enjoying a beautiful evening and a group of thugs step our with the intentions of putting a world of hurt on you. I guess if a person wants logic and a world to be reasonable, they need to move with with the Vulcans. Humanity seems to operate somewhere between fruitcake and insanity. I think we all want to live in a age of innocence. As H. Hart Crane stated in Voyages;

"O brilliant kids, frisk with your dog, Fondle your shells and sticks, bleached
By time and the elements; but there is a line
You must not cross nor ever trust beyond it
Spry cordage of your bodies to caresses
Too lichen-faithful from too wide a breast.
The bottom of the sea is cruel............."





or a more contemporary view of the loss of innocence by Allen Ginsberg;

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at
dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient
heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the
machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high
sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of
cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities
contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and
saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tene-
ment roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool
eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy
among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy &
publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burn-
ing their money in wastebaskets and listening
to the Terror through the wall......................"


(I just knew eventually, I would be able to use this stuff from literature class).

[vryhpyammoadded]

I find “the man up and go fight” comment a cop out and indicative of a weak mind desperately attempting to deny, displace and dodge the earful of concepts about to come his/her way that they’re incapable of handling lest they possibly implode in emo angst or climb the bell tower what with the reality of it all.

Lord knows, they simply don’t want to know. Fearful children who refuse to make a tough, mature decision, I say. Best pass by, leave them be unless you must teach. Then the gloves come off and anything goes putting adult into them.

[Baboonass]

I find “the man up and go fight” comment a cop out and indicative of a weak mind desperately attempting to deny, displace and dodge the earful of concepts about to come his/her way that they’re incapable of handling lest they possibly implode in emo angst or climb the bell tower what with the reality of it all.

Lord knows, they simply don’t want to know. Fearful children who refuse to make a tough, mature decision, I say. Best pass by, leave them be unless you must teach. Then the gloves come off and anything goes putting adult into them.

That, and the argument goes nowere when the answer is "I'm already serving" or "Have served".

The retort to that would be, "what have you done" or "what have you done"?

In any case, serving and support of any current conflict is utterly irrelevent. When you enlist, there is no option for "I only want to serve this country if I get to pick and choose the situation I desire".

Service to the country is just that. You may find yourself rebuilding mud huts in some 3rd world nation after a massive tropical storm, or finding yourself in harms way in some conflict you don't fully understand. The reason and location is not important as a proffessional soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman.

What I find far more irritating is when someone proclaims, "Some one should do something about XXXX". Yet have no intentions of ever actually doing something about that cause.

I'm not talking about putting on a uniform and packing heat, but any sort of support other than bitching and whining about all of the wrongs of the world with no personal recourse.

[gaijinsamurai]

I'm reminded of this guy:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3736660&postcount=6

[budgie]

Typical you missed that one budgie. Today's liberalism is facist , communist and regressively socialist. But that should not need explaining .

Indeed I am obviously far too stupid to see the similarities between the worst abusers of the 20th century and the harmless lefties of todays western governments.

[LineDoggie]

Meh....

I take the source of the accusation into account.

For instance, the last 8 years we've heard ad Nauseum about Cheney and his 5 deferments. Now we have Biden with those same 5 deferments, and the peanut gallery is strangely silent.

The Non-Serving issue is only going to get bigger as the disconnect between those who "Man Up" and those who dont gets larger over time. How many who ran for President in 2008 served? did it make any real difference?

FDR never served, and in World War One he could have as he wasnt crippled until 1923 or so. His Cousins from uncle Theodore all did. Quentin being shot down and Killed, Ted Jr. & Archie were wounded severely(Archie wound up crippled again in WW2 after serving in the pacific & Ted Jr. died at Normandy).

Yet FDR isnt considered a Chickenhawk, even though he did everything he could, legal & extra legal to send Troops into harms way. Many consider him a Paragon of the American Political Leader.


I do think the most anti-war people tend to be exceedingly militant, and on occasion violent. I'm not a big fan of the "We done kilt them A-Rabs good" factions either, they tend to be boorish versions of Hockey fans. I like to respond with :"Whats all this We ****, you got rats in your pockets?"

I also take into account those who did serve if in Combat Arms. There's nothing that pisses me off more than some Pogue who whines about war and has never even seen a live Iraq in the wild, because he spent his/her time guarding a clearing barrel at the PX/DFAC.

I have a Bro who had to have killed upwards of 30+ Iraqis in various incidents who hates the Military, and Iraq. I give him much respect because he manned up for something he hated and did the mission. He also hates the College brats with their Keffiyahs as well.

I am Not a Victim, nor a Hero- I am a Soldier and I do My Mission

[Hollis]

Line doggie, the beauty of a safe society is that it makes partisan politics and hypocrisy the same thing. We do it, it is good. You do it, it is bad.

Obamaians and Bushies are the same. A friend stated the bases of political position is based on whose ox is getting gored. For the next four years it is Obama's turn in the barrel.

[budgie]

Meh....

I take the source of the accusation into account.

For instance, the last 8 years we've heard ad Nauseum about Cheney and his 5 deferments. Now we have Biden with those same 5 deferments, and the peanut gallery is strangely silent.

Biden isn't as much of a "Hawk" as Cheney.


The Non-Serving issue is only going to get bigger as the disconnect between those who "Man Up" and those who dont gets larger over time. How many who ran for President in 2008 served? did it make any real difference?

To Give McCain his due, yeah I think it helped him, even if he didn't win. Always does.


I am Not a Victim, nor a Hero- I am a Soldier and I do My Mission

Respect to your having served mate.

[Baboonass]

I have a Bro who had to have killed upwards of 30+ Iraqis in various incidents who hates the Military, and Iraq. I give him much respect because he manned up for something he hated and did the mission.

Srgt York comes to mind.

[philbob]

Nazism, Communism, Stalinism, yes. Liberalism? Oh do please explain enlightened one.

Liberalism tends to defend Socialism (and national socialism is still socialism) and communism... Stalin himself said western liberals where useful idiots. This isnt even bring Abortion into the mix

[philbob]

Meh....

I take the source of the accusation into account.

For instance, the last 8 years we've heard ad Nauseum about Cheney and his 5 deferments. Now we have Biden with those same 5 deferments, and the peanut gallery is strangely silent.

The Non-Serving issue is only going to get bigger as the disconnect between those who "Man Up" and those who dont gets larger over time. How many who ran for President in 2008 served? did it make any real difference?

FDR never served, and in World War One he could have as he wasnt crippled until 1923 or so. His Cousins from uncle Theodore all did. Quentin being shot down and Killed, Ted Jr. & Archie were wounded severely(Archie wound up crippled again in WW2 after serving in the pacific & Ted Jr. died at Normandy).

Yet FDR isnt considered a Chickenhawk, even though he did everything he could, legal & extra legal to send Troops into harms way. Many consider him a Paragon of the American Political Leader.


I do think the most anti-war people tend to be exceedingly militant, and on occasion violent. I'm not a big fan of the "We done kilt them A-Rabs good" factions either, they tend to be boorish versions of Hockey fans. I like to respond with :"Whats all this We ****, you got rats in your pockets?"

I also take into account those who did serve if in Combat Arms. There's nothing that pisses me off more than some Pogue who whines about war and has never even seen a live Iraq in the wild, because he spent his/her time guarding a clearing barrel at the PX/DFAC.

I have a Bro who had to have killed upwards of 30+ Iraqis in various incidents who hates the Military, and Iraq. I give him much respect because he manned up for something he hated and did the mission. He also hates the College brats with their Keffiyahs as well.

I am Not a Victim, nor a Hero- I am a Soldier and I do My Mission

PHilbob concures

especially about the college brats and pouge bits..dont foregt the college brats with hooka's either....

[LineDoggie]

Srgt York comes to mind.

Nah, not this guy. He said he was "mostly was in the wrong place at the wrong time". His Scout Platoon kept running into Fights/IED's/VBIED's near Taji. BC had to take him off Patrol eventually as he was getting loopy and finding Alcohol/Vikadins during downtime. He was transferred to us to work Our TOC but no one told the CO he wasnt supposed to go outside the wire anymore. We were down to 85 effectives so kept using him as we didnt get replacements after 3/4's through.

Dont get me wrong, when Sober a Nicer guy you'd never serve with. But Pure Killer instinct outside the wire. Then again, he once stopped me from crossing a line. He could drop a RPG toting Iraqi from 150M like it was nothing, and then tell you how the romans built aquifers 2 seconds later.

I still see him around, he spends a lot of time at the VA

[domokun]

Liberalism tends to defend Socialism (and national socialism is still socialism) and communism... Stalin himself said western liberals where useful idiots. This isnt even bring Abortion into the mix

I posted this on another thread but it deserves to be here too as bought up national socialism into this...



They were still considered as extreme right wing, Jews weren't their only target another major enemy for Nazis was communists and other left wing parties like social democrats. Their policy was mostly agreed by centre right parties until they banned those too.

Communism was part of modernization process of society same as democracy. Nazism as most extreme form of fascism as anti modernization movement that based it's methods are partially to modern but their values were mostly ultra conservative. Socialism part of nazism was forgotten very fast after they got into power. Only socialist policy they had was forced job security, where employer needed to have reason to kick worker out, unless he was part some discriminated groups. Workers sacrificed some of pay to achieve this. Big businesses were quite unaffected until war.



That Stalin's opinion over western communists and liberals is indeed correct.

Personally I think conscription is best form of basis for military as it is most equal. Problem with conscript army is that professional military is better suited for most countries in modern mobile warfare.

I remember reading an anti arms race pacifist publication from early to mid 80's that criticized US professional militarys some recruiting methods, as hippies saw it somewhat forcing poorer folks to join "voluntarily". Based on denial of social security on basis that you can get job from military. Go figure as first hippies protested against conscript military and when they got professional military they continued bitching.

Question of right wing supporting of wars is indeed rightful. How many of middle aged upper middle class folks would be less hawkish if their kids would be sent to fight? Does US military reflect population of USA (in respect of social classes)? How many American service personnel join for educational benefits military provides?

[philbob]

Nah, not this guy. He said he was "mostly was in the wrong place at the wrong time". His Scout Platoon kept running into Fights/IED's/VBIED's near Taji. BC had to take him off Patrol eventually as he was getting loopy and finding Alcohol/Vikadins during downtime. He was transferred to us to work Our TOC but no one told the CO he wasnt supposed to go outside the wire anymore. We were down to 85 effectives so kept using him as we didnt get replacements after 3/4's through.

Dont get me wrong, when Sober a Nicer guy you'd never serve with. But Pure Killer instinct outside the wire. Then again, he once stopped me from crossing a line. He could drop a RPG toting Iraqi from 150M like it was nothing, and then tell you how the romans built aquifers 2 seconds later.

I still see him around, he spends a lot of time at the VA

sounds like an intresting fellow

[Aerosoul]

The statement is retarded and anyone with half a brain knows it's not accurate.
The military is predominantly "right-wing" is it not?

But there are plenty of right-wing loudmouths supporting war who have never served and likely don't have the balls to have ever served even with the opportunity.

But "That goes for everyone" is an applicable statement here.

/end

[CamoDeafie]

Here's a reason "mandatory service" wouldn't work.... the disabled/handicapped group of people 18+, the need for some of the youth to be doing othe things than just going off to war, like keeping the industries running, offices staffed, so on ad infinitum... I'd love to be a serviceman, but my disability prevents me from such, however, it doesn't prevent me from seeking jobs within the defense industries and such...having worked an internship at a NAVAIR on the east coast, for my educational degree of machining technology... I find it funny how so many "liberals" and "conservatives" both would never serve, yet they talk foreign policy as if they're experts on it.....I tend to get in arguements with my peers about foeign policy and such ,mainly because they don't think of why military is needed and then they talk about people needing to get off welfare, then they shut up after I point out how our gracious state gvts and federal gvt have given grants to them free of charge, and loaned to them and even give them social security benefits for their disabilities...:) (myself being 1, but am looking for a job to get out)

[Britboy]

I think the Weinburger Doctrine should be read by these foreign policy experts and those baying for war. That seems a rather sensible doctrine to my mind.

[Eknytz]

The majority of the United States military is republican and with officers the percentage is even higher.

[Walter Sobchak]

In general, it's not a valid argument: too simplistic, and paints a broad brush. That having been said, i know of quite a few chickenhawks who never served. In fairness, I know a lot of left-wing politically correct types who never served, either.

Unfortunately, types like **** Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and a few others have given people who like to use this a little fuel.

It's an argument on par with: You can't have an opinion on murder, unless someone in your family has been murdered; or You can't have an opinion on rape unless you are female or have had a female relative who's been raped, etc.

That's a way to attack the messenger without discussing the message.

[rchad]

I'm a right-wing nut, and I served in the Marines!

[LazerLordz]

I would consider myself a classic liberal. Incidentally, I also had impeccable manners in high school. :)

Then the world is not going to the dogs yet. p-)

[Basillicus]

Personally I think conscription is best form of basis for military as it is most equal. Problem with conscript army is that professional military is better suited for most countries in modern mobile warfare.

I remember reading an anti arms race pacifist publication from early to mid 80's that criticized US professional militarys some recruiting methods, as hippies saw it somewhat forcing poorer folks to join "voluntarily". Based on denial of social security on basis that you can get job from military. Go figure as first hippies protested against conscript military and when they got professional military they continued bitching.

Question of right wing supporting of wars is indeed rightful. How many of middle aged upper middle class folks would be less hawkish if their kids would be sent to fight? Does US military reflect population of USA (in respect of social classes)? How many American service personnel join for educational benefits military provides?

I think conscription is also good because especially nowadays you cannot send a conscript army to fight a war they don't believe in. Pulling reservists out of their civil lives and throwing them into a conflict isn't going to work unless there is real and concrete support for the war. Supporting a war is a different thing when youself, your brothers, father etc. are directly involved in fighting than when the fighting would be done by some faceless and abstract institution. War isn't fought by "the troops" but members of your own family. Makes you think is attacking another nation really worth it.

[philbob]

I think conscription is also good because especially nowadays you cannot send a conscript army to fight a war they don't believe in. Pulling reservists out of their civil lives and throwing them into a conflict isn't going to work unless there is real and concrete support for the war. Supporting a war is a different thing when youself, your brothers, father etc. are directly involved in fighting than when the fighting would be done by some faceless and abstract institution. War isn't fought by "the troops" but members of your own family. Makes you think is attacking another nation really worth it.

beautfully said.. unfortantly that did not stop Korea or Viet Nam:-(

[martinexsquaddie]

though that tosser who claimed his sons were serving his country by helping him get elected.
strangely did'nt get elected ha ***** ha

those that get all moist about war while never served and keeping there children out of the firing can and should expected to be called on it.
Blairs "blood price" and " portillo" SAS rant were both appalling.
Though there is an Ex 21 sas bloke in the tory party shadow cabinet. (imho should'nt be allowed near any important decsions as the few ex SAS blokes I've met have all been as mad as a box of frogs).

[angry cow]

Just wanted to point out that Obama carried Ft. Bragg by a WIDE margin. No party or ideology has a monopoly on claiming to support the troops. We have our own culture, it tends to be more fiscally conservative, but socially you can find people all over the map. In that sense I'd say there is more of a generational gap in that younger officers and enlisted are more socially liberal, while the baby-boomer crowd is more conservative. And of course, there are always outliers. I've met everything from anarchists to national socialists (fascists).

Republicans do a better job at the patriotic rhetoric, but at the same time they like to raise Defense Research and Development spending without really helping servicemembers out with greater pay or benefits. They sound like they care more about us than they do.

Democrats suck at the rhetoric, and cut money for vital training, but compensate by increasing pay and benefits. They sound like they care less about us than they do.

Each side has its advantages and disadvantages. But no side has a monopoly on the political favor of the American Military.

[Hollis]

It is funny, D's tend to support the Veteran, R's tend to support those who are serving. Why don't they just get together and do both? Unless a person is obsessed with politics, I don't think most people see either party as the only choice. It is a mix and how one views that mix, is generally how and who they support.

[khaz]

Dem's support the troops now cause they learned thier lesson from Vietnam, to act like they love the troops and hate the war when in reality they hate both.

[philbob]

It is funny, D's tend to support the Veteran, R's tend to support those who are serving. Why don't they just get together and do both? Unless a person is obsessed with politics, I don't think most people see either party as the only choice. It is a mix and how one views that mix, is generally how and who they support.


Therfore lies the problem, while yes it is nobel to want to support those who have done so much for this country with as many bennifits as you can bestow, (I would be one taking adavantage of theses bennifits) the democrats priority for lack of a better term is missplaced, becuase the sad truth of the matter is that with new and better equitment and more training you can mininizme how many veterans benifits will be needed later on particually in the health care aspect of this. In addition to this you greatly increase there chances for surviving in a combat zone with better equitment and better training, and in my book those activly serving take priority over those who have left the service for other things.

On another note, the democrats do a really lousy job on marketing when it comes to the military, this is a mix of not knowing what should be (and what was for a previous generation) common military knowlegde. To compound the problem for them it usally looks like pandering when they talk about the veterans. Plus it doesnt help when democratic senators say they have commited a warcrime with no investigation being underway yet, or are just out there bombing villages to win an election it shows disdane and ignorance for what members of the military go through.

[philbob]

Just wanted to point out that Obama carried Ft. Bragg by a WIDE margin. No party or ideology has a monopoly on claiming to support the troops. We have our own culture, it tends to be more fiscally conservative, but socially you can find people all over the map. In that sense I'd say there is more of a generational gap in that younger officers and enlisted are more socially liberal, while the baby-boomer crowd is more conservative. And of course, there are always outliers. I've met everything from anarchists to national socialists (fascists).

Republicans do a better job at the patriotic rhetoric, but at the same time they like to raise Defense Research and Development spending without really helping servicemembers out with greater pay or benefits. They sound like they care more about us than they do.

Democrats suck at the rhetoric, and cut money for vital training, but compensate by increasing pay and benefits. They sound like they care less about us than they do.

Each side has its advantages and disadvantages. But no side has a monopoly on the political favor of the American Military.

Im very supprised that did not make the news would you post where you found that information please

also FYI Bush and the republicans oversaw massives increases in pay and bennifits as well as the begining of construction for new barracks, recreactional areas, family houseing and general quality of life issues. It was also Bush who pushed for the changes in the new GI bill (which was a mistake in my opinion due to the finiacal problems)

[dave81]

Not sure how wide the margin is, but speaking for myself as a Ft Bragg soldier, I have to say I only know of maybe two or three people (out of the hundred or so whom I see everyday at work) who supported or even liked Bush. Most of us just wanted him gone. We'll do our job, and of course our leaders stand behind the policies of the office of the President of the United States, but most of my unit were not supporters, to put it lightly.

[Eknytz]

Not sure how wide the margin is, but speaking for myself as a Ft Bragg soldier, I have to say I only know of maybe two or three people (out of the hundred or so whom I see everyday at work) who supported or even liked Bush. Most of us just wanted him gone. We'll do our job, and of course our leaders stand behind the policies of the office of the President of the United States, but most of my unit were not supporters, to put it lightly.
When you say "supporters" at the end do you mean supporters of Bush or Obama?

[G-AWZT]

Liberals support bombing shelling shooting as long long as it satisfies their bleeding hearts. Serbia was an unfortunate victim of liberal "give war a chance".

[budgie]

I confess that was me.

But the true liberals the ones who are against all conflict, period: they were out protesting in force, burning Clinton effigies and so on. The Left is not entirely against military action.

[dave81]

When you say "supporters" at the end do you mean supporters of Bush or Obama?
Me and most of the people I know are anti-Bush. Like roughly 70% of the country, we disapprove of "The Divider".

[Walter Sobchak]

But the true liberals the ones who are against all conflict, period: they were out protesting in force, burning Clinton effigies and so on. The Left is not entirely against military action.

No... the word "Liberal", like the word "Progressive" has been hijacked by the Far Left in order to make themselves more appealing.

The modern use of "Liberal" came about during the 1930s when things were so bad and many Americans, many pretty well educated and all with a good sense of decency and morality, sought to change the system.

A classic "New Deal" Liberal was nothing like a modern "liberal" They were not ideologues, and many opposed not only the Republicans, but on occasion, even their own Democratic Party, especially in the south. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, they spoke out. When Fascism spread through Europe, they weren't pacifists; many went to Spain and fought, and many liberal idealists joined the RCAF and RAF to fight the Nazis.

The author William Manchester was one such person. In fact, many well-educated, northeastern liberals joined the Marines because they thought they would be the first to fight the Nazis. They were encouraged by the Marines' occupation of Iceland in July1941, and saw this as reason to join up!


Indeed I am obviously far too stupid to see the similarities between the worst abusers of the 20th century and the harmless lefties of todays western governments.

Pacifists and other "progressives" enabled people like Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao to come to power. Remember, that all revolutions have been lead by the middle class or upper class, the "revolutionary" classes. This includes the "peasant" rebellions in places as disparate as China, Nicaragua, Cuba, Kampuchea and Russia. Mao was the son of a well-off land owner; Vladimir Ulyanov was the son of a teacher and pro-democracy activist; Danny Ortega was the son of middle-class, politically-active parents; Pol-pot was born into a fairly wealthy, well-connected family.

Hitler gained a global stage and became emboldened because Chamberlain and his band of "Peace in Our Time" pacifists let him have the German half of the nation of Czechoslovakia. His reoccupation of the industrial areas occupied by France could have been easily stopped, but the pacifists in the French government were afraid (the Germans marched with unloaded weapons).

Stalin? Well, you've got me there... he was just a murdering opportunist. Lenin said as he was dying to keep Stalin the hell away from any the Leadership of the USSR.

Pacifism does not equate to liberalism.

In WWII, most modern "liberals" would have been called "Fifth Columnists"!

[Dominique]

Dem's support the troops now cause they learned thier lesson from Vietnam, to act like they love the troops and hate the war when in reality they hate both.

So how would you classify all of the troops that are currently serving, or who have served, especially those who've died or were wounded while serving that vote democratic?

[philbob]

on another note if a liberal ask you why you arnt seving you can throw it back at them and ask the same thing sence they claim to care so much about the mate to there left and right they should be over there with the solider sailor airman or Marine watching his back...

[angry cow]

Im very supprised that did not make the news would you post where you found that information please

also FYI Bush and the republicans oversaw massives increases in pay and bennifits as well as the begining of construction for new barracks, recreactional areas, family houseing and general quality of life issues. It was also Bush who pushed for the changes in the new GI bill (which was a mistake in my opinion due to the finiacal problems)

There are no direct stats for Ft. Bragg, but it stretches over Cumberland and Hoke Counties in North Carolina.

Hoke County - 59% Obama, 40% McCain
Cumberland County - 59% Obama, 41% McCain

Those counties and a few adjacent ones voted for Obama by large margins, but most of the counties in that part of North Carolina were pro-McCain or much closer.

[philbob]

No... the word "Liberal", like the word "Progressive" has been hijacked by the Far Left in order to make themselves more appealing.

The modern use of "Liberal" came about during the 1930s when things were so bad and many Americans, many pretty well educated and all with a good sense of decency and morality, sought to change the system.

A classic "New Deal" Liberal was nothing like a modern "liberal" They were not ideologues, and many opposed not only the Republicans, but on occasion, even their own Democratic Party, especially in the south. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, they spoke out. When Fascism spread through Europe, they weren't pacifists; many went to Spain and fought, and many liberal idealists joined the RCAF and RAF to fight the Nazis.

The author William Manchester was one such person. In fact, many well-educated, northeastern liberals joined the Marines because they thought they would be the first to fight the Nazis. They were encouraged by the Marines' occupation of Iceland in July1941, and saw this as reason to join up!



Pacifists and other "progressives" enabled people like Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao to come to power. Remember, that all revolutions have been lead by the middle class or upper class, the "revolutionary" classes. This includes the "peasant" rebellions in places as disparate as China, Nicaragua, Cuba, Kampuchea and Russia. Mao was the son of a well-off land owner; Vladimir Ulyanov was the son of a teacher and pro-democracy activist; Danny Ortega was the son of middle-class, politically-active parents; Pol-pot was born into a fairly wealthy, well-connected family.

Hitler gained a global stage and became emboldened because Chamberlain and his band of "Peace in Our Time" pacifists let him have the German half of the nation of Czechoslovakia. His reoccupation of the industrial areas occupied by France could have been easily stopped, but the pacifists in the French government were afraid (the Germans marched with unloaded weapons).

Stalin? Well, you've got me there... he was just a murdering opportunist. Lenin said as he was dying to keep Stalin the hell away from any the Leadership of the USSR.

Pacifism does not equate to liberalism.

In WWII, most modern "liberals" would have been called "Fifth Columnists"!



Ill call them that todayp-)

[philbob]

There are no direct stats for Ft. Bragg, but it stretches over Cumberland and Hoke Counties in North Carolina.

Hoke County - 59% Obama, 40% McCain
Cumberland County - 59% Obama, 41% McCain

Those counties and a few adjacent ones voted for Obama by large margins, but most of the counties in that part of North Carolina were pro-McCain or much closer.

what is the area around ft bragg like? also does this include the fact alot of military folk tend to vote with there home state through absentee balloting?

[Douros81]

In general, it's not a valid argument: too simplistic, and paints a broad brush. That having been said, i know of quite a few chickenhawks who never served. In fairness, I know a lot of left-wing politically correct types who never served, either.

Unfortunately, types like **** Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and a few others have given people who like to use this a little fuel.

Rush is 4F or F4, he can't serve. But he has giving a lot of money away to help those who have.

Don't foreget Bill Clinton:bash:

[philbob]

Rush is 4F or F4, he can't serve. But he has giving a lot of money away to help those who have.

Don't foreget Bill Clinton:bash:

to people who truly need the help unlike a certin TV personality cough Oprah cough

[gaijinsamurai]

Fair enough.

Limbaugh's still an idiot, though.

[gaijinsamurai]

to people who truly need the help unlike a certin TV personality cough Oprah cough

So, are you saying the charities, institutions, and individuals who've received money from Oprah Winfrey didn't need the money?

Sources?

[philbob]

So, are you saying the charities, institutions, and individuals who've received money from Oprah Winfrey didn't need the money?

Sources?

im more talking abot her show how she gives away crap on her show and that gets all the attention. But also on that subject at least Rush nothing rush gave to was shut down for child abuse :roll:. There is no need to start somthing new too just put your name on it when there are real and established instuitions that do need help

[gaijinsamurai]

^ Yeah, I see your point on that. Oprah can be annoying, and frankly, even though I respect a lot of what she does, I grew tired of her a long time ago.
But in fairness, that girls school in South Africa was something she had good intentions for, and the abuse that went on wasn't her fault.

[KVLG]

Fair enough.

Limbaugh's still an idiot, though.

That's really a tolerant statement, to say that someone you disagrees with is an idiot.


BTW, I'm no fan of John Kerry, but he was right when he said about Vietnam service. "We do not need to divide the country into who served and how". So we all should just dispence with all that "chickenhawk" male bovine fecal matter.

[philbob]

concure but if some smart ass liberal **** is going to ask why your not serving you should throw tha back at them with the same question if they care so much about there countrymen they have no excuse and it will prove that they are hpyocrits

[philbob]

^ Yeah, I see your point on that. Oprah can be annoying, and frankly, even though I respect a lot of what she does, I grew tired of her a long time ago.
But in fairness, that girls school in South Africa was something she had good intentions for, and the abuse that went on wasn't her fault.


it was more a vanity thing i think coupled with good intentions but it wasnt needed in the short or long run

[philbob]

That's really a tolerant statement, to say that someone you disagrees with is an idiot.


BTW, I'm no fan of John Kerry, but he was right when he said about Vietnam service. "We do not need to divide the country into who served and how". So we all should just dispence with all that "chickenhawk" male bovine fecal matter.


It doesnt hurt too serve though and it should be encouraged on all levels (military in particular)

[KVLG]

I've got mixed feelings about a draft.
I think it would benefit society as a whole, but would be detrimental to the military. An all-volunteer, professional military is more disciplined and proficient. But, I think our generation on down (I'm 41) has lost something, since my that of my dad's and granfathers.


Then we should stick to the all-volunteer military. The draft should be adopted or not based solely on whether it would benefit our military. PS, as stated, some people just are unable to serve in the armed forces. For example, I have Asperger's Syndrome, which is a type of autism, so I'm probably out.

[philbob]

Then we should stick to the all-volunteer military. The draft should be adopted or not based solely on whether it would benefit our military. PS, as stated, some people just are unable to serve in the armed forces. For example, I have Asperger's Syndrome, which is a type of autism, so I'm probably out.

and no one should hold that agianst you. but people do sadly Im still on the divided but longterm gains return to the draft and remove all barriers (gay, race, relilgon and ***) would be a good course of action

[LineDoggie]

Fair enough.

Limbaugh's still an idiot, though.

Goes without saying, I find him to be a Pompous Ass, which is why I dont listen to him.

[philbob]

hence the beauty of capitalism

[gaijinsamurai]

That's really a tolerant statement, to say that someone you disagrees with is an idiot.

.

How's about when that IDIOT rambles about how Native Americans are a bunch of crybabies, with nothing to bitch about?

Three of my grandparents were part-Native, from Oklahoma, and I can tell you and Rush that not every Indian has gotten rich off casinos.

[LineDoggie]

Frankly, I cant see a Draft returning for Many reasons, not the least of which it is political Suicide for any pol who seriously* tries to institute one.

It's easy to say lets have a Draft, but the Logistics are another matter.

If we say have an Intake of 100,000- all for the Army

Where are they to be Housed, Trained, Stationed?

We sold or closed many of the bases used for Basic training with BRAC. Many of the others are now for Permanent Party units. Are we to hot bunk barracks indefinitely at overcrowded Southern Bases?

Where do we find Drill Sergeants, Cadre, Support Staff, Training areas? Most of our Range space is used for deploying units now. who is the priority?

Say 3 DS for each Plt of 39 men, thats 2,564 Platoons- 7,692 Drill Sergeants alone, All in addition to what we have now. For every Drill how many support staff are needed, how many Cadremen?

What do we pay a Draftee? Last time the draft was in force an E-1 made $307.20 a Month Base pay
http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates/1973.pdf

It's now $1,399.50 Base pay, Not counting for dependants, etc.

Do we pay a Draftee the same as a Regular Enlistee? If not why not? Who gets Exemptions. How are Illegal Aliens Exempted or Drafted? Do we start Draft Cards as a Means of Checking status again?



* Charlie Rangle, has never voted for his Own Draft Bills when they came up for a Vote.(Yet in 2004 Colleges were inundated with rumors that Bush was going to start a Draft- Beautiful Dem Propaganda machine in operation)

[gaijinsamurai]

Very good points, Linedoggie.

On top of that, the military establishment is strongly against it.

[LineDoggie]

There is that as well. I for one dont relish going down an Alley in Sadr city knowing that the 240 gunner covering us is some kid who is pissed at life because he has to serve 2 years. I would rather have someone who is committed to Serving. I dont believe Conscripts are as Motivated, though my understanding of draftees is limited to anecdotal evidence of Vietnam & Korea mostly.

[gaijinsamurai]

Yeah, and when I was a sergeant dishing out discipline, I liked knowing the fact that every pfc. I was being a **** to knew what they were getting into (or damn well should have known!) when they signed their contract!

When volunteers piss and moan, they have nobody to blame but themselves, which makes it a whole lot easier.

[philbob]

well to go into the details of how we would create one,, first this is not somthing overnight. and im only talkin about the logistics poloticking is a totaly diffrent story.

one; the deal gets apporved by the senate and prez. most likly a multi year plan similar to the marine corps expansion of 2007 with a completion date for draftess to begin recruiting in say 201X (2015) for the sake of the game. only two services are forced to accept the draftess the Navy and Army this is only a two year or two and a half year draft at lower base pay then a voulneteer. say 1100 a month starting with full bennies. the MOS's they are put into are non combat or generic ones comm, motor -t and supply for the army side and deck division for hte navy side. There are only medical deferments allowed nothing based off race, gender, ****** orientation, or religion.

Two; Over the course of the 5-8 years to establish the new infustructure (for recruit training and housing on bases) the draft system is assemebled and the training facilitse are established. You expand the program to allow Draftess the choice of enlisting instead for two extra years with full pay and bennifits you would also open up the smaller or more techincal branches to them USMC, USAF, USCG if they chooes to enlist fully.

three; with new draft system in place you send the draftess to Brigade and division HQ, CS, and CSS type units no line units are to recive them unless they ask to go to one.

I would personally extend full GI bill bennifits to them as well after this is all said and done

[philbob]

Yeah, and when I was a sergeant dishing out discipline, I liked knowing the fact that every pfc. I was being a **** to knew what they were getting into (or damn well should have known!) when they signed their contract!

When volunteers piss and moan, they have nobody to blame but themselves, which makes it a whole lot easier.

tru dat

on another note I loved how Obama passed off the change ball during his victory speech telling the people who voted for him that it is up to us to make the change happen now anyone else catch that? It will be intresting to see how many people who were all for him actually join Americorps, peace corps, the military and so on

[THESPEAR]

Although , Right wingers support war , they are more likely to join the Armed forces than Liberals.

[afreu]

Liberalism tends to defend Socialism (and national socialism is still socialism) and communism... Stalin himself said western liberals where useful idiots. This isnt even bring Abortion into the mix

Perhaps that's different in the US, but in Germany THE liberals promote the exact opposite (free market, etc.) of socialism.

/EDIT: Okay, wiki tells me that what we call Liberals in Germany is actually called Libertarians in the US. And the Liberals of the US would be ranked as social-liberal in Germany.

[Hollis]

Perhaps that's different in the US, but in Germany THE liberals promote the exact opposite (free market, etc.) of socialism.

/EDIT: Okay, wiki tells me that what we call Liberals in Germany is actually called Libertarians in the US. And the Liberals of the US would be ranked as social-liberal in Germany.


That could be how the term "Liberal" is used. Political usage does not always match the actual word meaning.

[commanding]

Is this thread about right leaning folks not serving in the military or about the draft?
And I really do not know does not Israel have a conscription for both male and females? Doesn't it work well in Israel?
Frankly, I am upset that no US politician has the ba11s to push for conscription again in the USA.
there is nothing wrong with conscription, and military service. Sure the lazy kids won't want to get up at 4am and mop the floor, run in the dark to cadence, etc. ...but life is hard, and freedom ain't free.

As for righties not serving, I think the same can be said for the likes of Bill Clinton, etc.
Here is a weird thing to me..after every big war in the USA, an ex military guy became president. Revolution=Washington, civil war = Grant, spanish american war=Teddy Roosevelt, World war one=Truman (late but there), World war two= Ike. Vietnam= zippo. WTF?