masterrig 1 #26 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy, should certain ones of privilige or anything else be exempt? Should our military be made-up strictly of share-croppers, poor and indigent, G.E.D.'s or kids who work in a car wash? How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a bit? Let's keep things equal, here! Isn't that what this country is supposed to be all about... Fairness and equality? I don't think anyone is trying to say they should be exempt from service. I do think such scientists are far better utilized in a capacity other other than operating a weapon. It is much easier to train someone to use a weapon than to teach them atomic physics. Just my $.02 ___________________________________ I was probably, being a bit sarcastic. Sure, I can see folks 'serving' their country in ways other than carrying a weapon. Look at 'Rosie the Riveter' and police officers, scientists, as you mentioned. The only point I'm trying to make is, Just because someone has 'pull' to keep them out of the draft, simply because they are some senator's son is anything but fair. Make sense? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #27 December 25, 2006 >How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a >bit? Let's keep things equal, here! I agree that everyone should serve if there is a draft. But I think it would be foolish to take a pilot and have him disarm bombs if he's not trained to disarm bombs. Likewise, it would be silly to plunk a munitions expert in the cockpit of a V-22 and hope he can fly it. Different people have different skills, and some people will contribute far more to a war effort in a lab (or in a cockpit) than in a trench. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #28 December 25, 2006 Quote>How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a >bit? Let's keep things equal, here! I agree that everyone should serve if there is a draft. But I think it would be foolish to take a pilot and have him disarm bombs if he's not trained to disarm bombs. Likewise, it would be silly to plunk a munitions expert in the cockpit of a V-22 and hope he can fly it. Different people have different skills, and some people will contribute far more to a war effort in a lab (or in a cockpit) than in a trench. ________________________________ Exactly! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 December 26, 2006 Quote>How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a >bit? Let's keep things equal, here! I agree that everyone should serve if there is a draft. But I think it would be foolish to take a pilot and have him disarm bombs if he's not trained to disarm bombs. Likewise, it would be silly to plunk a munitions expert in the cockpit of a V-22 and hope he can fly it. Different people have different skills, and some people will contribute far more to a war effort in a lab (or in a cockpit) than in a trench. Absolutely...but now you've opened the door back up to exemptions for this, that and the other. Some sort of direct commissioning, similar to how Doctors are currently handled by the military, solves that problem w/o the deferral/exemption bullshit...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #30 December 26, 2006 QuoteIt is much easier to train someone to use a weapon than to teach them atomic physics. Nonsense. I got myself a copy of "Idiot's Guide to Physics and Engineering", and I nailed the whole shebang in about a day or two. But still can't shoot straight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #31 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt is much easier to train someone to use a weapon than to teach them atomic physics. Nonsense. I got myself a copy of "Idiot's Guide to Physics and Engineering", and I nailed the whole shebang in about a day or two. But still can't shoot straight. ______________________________ You're just not tryin'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #32 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote EVERY 'able bodied' man and woman would be susceptible to the draft. No exceptions. No rich kids, politician's kids no favoritism, no exceptions and no exemptions... it would never pass and I'll go along with that! Chuck How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? ___________________________________ Why, should certain ones of privilige or anything else be exempt? Should our military be made-up strictly of share-croppers, poor and indigent, G.E.D.'s or kids who work in a car wash? How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a bit? Let's keep things equal, here! Isn't that what this country is supposed to be all about... Fairness and equality? Chuck This topic has been flogged to death over and over on this forum. The draft was done away with because it was perceived as unfair. Now people want to bring it back because the current situation is unfair (economically, it appears - this seems to be the sole argument). Some folks just can't make up their minds, because they don't get it that life itself is unfair, and a lot of calls for the draft appear to based more upon some silly class-envy than on reality. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #33 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote EVERY 'able bodied' man and woman would be susceptible to the draft. No exceptions. No rich kids, politician's kids no favoritism, no exceptions and no exemptions... it would never pass and I'll go along with that! Chuck How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? ___________________________________ Why, should certain ones of privilige or anything else be exempt? Should our military be made-up strictly of share-croppers, poor and indigent, G.E.D.'s or kids who work in a car wash? How about throwin' in some 'upper-crusters' to brighten things up a bit? Let's keep things equal, here! Isn't that what this country is supposed to be all about... Fairness and equality? Chuck This topic has been flogged to death over and over on this forum. The draft was done away with because it was perceived as unfair. Now people want to bring it back because the current situation is unfair (economically, it appears - this seems to be the sole argument). Some folks just can't make up their minds, because they don't get it that life itself is unfair, and a lot of calls for the draft appear to based more upon some silly class-envy than on reality. mh . ____________________________________ True story. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 December 26, 2006 I'm sure Charlie Rangel won't have any problems re-introducing his draft bill.... OR voting against it, again... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #35 December 26, 2006 QuoteI'm sure Charlie Rangel won't have any problems re-introducing his draft bill.... OR voting against it, again... ___________________________________ How true, is that! A draft won't pass anyhow. We've been there... done that. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #36 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuote EVERY 'able bodied' man and woman would be susceptible to the draft. No exceptions. No rich kids, politician's kids no favoritism, no exceptions and no exemptions... it would never pass and I'll go along with that! Chuck How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? Henry Moseley enlisted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #37 December 26, 2006 Quotea lot of calls for the draft appear to based more upon some silly class-envy than on reality. True to a point, but only to a point. I don't think it's all about class envy. I think a lot of it is making a particular point that if certain chickenhawk Senators, Congressmen, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides and Presidents knew that committing this country to armed conflict would result in a near certainty that their own children or grandchildren would serve in a combat zone, maybe they'd think twice about sending SOMEONE ELSE'S 18 year old children into harm's way. Bush has 2 daughters of military age. I don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #38 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm sure Charlie Rangel won't have any problems re-introducing his draft bill.... OR voting against it, again... ___________________________________ How true, is that! A draft won't pass anyhow. We've been there... done that. Chuck That equine is deceased, flagellated unto utter motality in this forum. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 December 26, 2006 QuoteI don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Oddly enough...it didn't seem to make a difference during WWII, Korea or Vietnam...Congress still voted for it, knowing it could be their children going to war... Of course, that doesn't make near as good of a bash, now does it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #40 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteI don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Oddly enough...it didn't seem to make a difference during WWII, Korea or Vietnam...Congress still voted for it, knowing it could be their children going to war... Of course, that doesn't make near as good of a bash, now does it? Which does absolutely nothing to respond to my post except reflect your still-lingering hurt feelings. Whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuotea lot of calls for the draft appear to based more upon some silly class-envy than on reality. True to a point, but only to a point. I don't think it's all about class envy. I think a lot of it is making a particular point that if certain chickenhawk Senators, Congressmen, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides and Presidents knew that committing this country to armed conflict would result in a near certainty that their own children or grandchildren would serve in a combat zone, maybe they'd think twice about sending SOMEONE ELSE'S 18 year old children into harm's way. Near certainty? Seems like a bit of a stretch. QuoteBush has 2 daughters of military age. I don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Why should they? Is there some reason why they should be held to a different standard, in volunteering to join the military, than everyone else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Oddly enough...it didn't seem to make a difference during WWII, Korea or Vietnam...Congress still voted for it, knowing it could be their children going to war... Of course, that doesn't make near as good of a bash, now does it? Which does absolutely nothing to respond to my post except reflect your still-lingering hurt feelings. Whatever. Actually, I think it answers it quite well - the fact that you don't care for the answer makes it no less valid. Speaking of hurt feelings.... QuoteI think a lot of it is making a particular point that if certain chickenhawk Senators, Congressmen, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides and Presidents knew... Seeing as how you're saying they're not qualified since they didn't go to war... YOU'RE not qualified to speak on the subject unless you've served... of course, that disqualification also includes 95% of Congress... Also telling is how far the "party of tolerance" goes to show just how INtolerant they are of any viewpoint other than their own...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #43 December 26, 2006 Also, being in uniform does not automatically put you in harms way..... Enlist in the right service ([R]AF) and for the right specialty (techie, for example) ... safe as houses. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #44 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote EVERY 'able bodied' man and woman would be susceptible to the draft. No exceptions. No rich kids, politician's kids no favoritism, no exceptions and no exemptions... it would never pass and I'll go along with that! Chuck How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? Henry Moseley enlisted. I know - not relevant. What good does it do to send a top scientist to the front regardless of how he enters the military? Is it an appropriate use of resources?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #45 December 26, 2006 I'm 4-A as well, I think (honorable discharge from Navy and Army Guard and Gulf War vet). I am FOR the draft for one reason - it would put an immediate end to this stupid ass war. Unless the war affects people's lives directly, or the lives of their children, they could care less who dies in it. Start pulling kids out of college, and see what happens. War needs to be a burden shared equally in this country. At the start of a conflict ALL Americans need to realize that they may have to fight - when that happens we will start fighting the truly necessary wars, and these 'wars of choice' will end. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote EVERY 'able bodied' man and woman would be susceptible to the draft. No exceptions. No rich kids, politician's kids no favoritism, no exceptions and no exemptions... it would never pass and I'll go along with that! Chuck How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? Henry Moseley enlisted. I know - not relevant. Oh. I thought this was about mandatory draft. Quote What good does it do to send a top scientist to the front regardless of how he enters the military? Is it an appropriate use of resources? Are you saying we should prohibit certain people from volunteering, if we "as a society" think they could make a greater contribution elsewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #47 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sure Charlie Rangel won't have any problems re-introducing his draft bill.... OR voting against it, again... ___________________________________ How true, is that! A draft won't pass anyhow. We've been there... done that. Chuck That equine is deceased, flagellated unto utter motality in this forum. mh . _______________________________ Ya' think? Also, I'm not really the one continuing the subject. I just replied to Mike. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #48 December 26, 2006 <> - Bet it wouldn't. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #49 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteBush has 2 daughters of military age. I don't see them hurrying into uniform to set an example. Why should they? Is there some reason why they should be held to a different standard, in volunteering to join the military, than everyone else? Some people don't find Bush's militarism, while not strongly encouraging his own military-age children to serve in the military, to be hypocritical. I happen to think it is. I happen to disagree with John McCain's idea to "surge" more troops to Iraq. But I read today that his son is about to enter the Marines. We all know that means the chances are not small that the kid will be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. To me, there's a certain ethical credibility and intellectual honesty to McCain's position that Bush will never have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #50 December 26, 2006 To defend Bush (Oh my GOD) - it's up to his girls alone, to make a decision to join up or not. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
