Author Topic: Neocon Columnist Calls For Military Draft, Cites Possible Invasion Of Pakistan (Read 6049 times)

alsaqr · « **Reply #30 on:** January 16, 2009, 02:07:42 AM »

During WWII draftees kept this country free. Of the 15 million or so folks who served during WWII about 10 million were draftees. They fought very well and wanted to get the war over so they could go home.

The US military is much too small thanks to the drastic cuts made during the administrations of Big Daddy Bush and Clinton. We had the very best army in the world in the mid to late 80s. As soon as the old Soviet Union fell the politicians in DC started talking "peace dividend." They could not wait to cut the military budget.

The political pukes in DC gutted the 18 division army to an ineffective 10 divisions.

DDelle338 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 16, 2009, 07:00:10 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on January 15, 2009, 09:28:26 AM

I have an even better idea. Only those who have served, can vote.

Yep ,,, Allowing of course for those that were ineligible due to medical reasons. The same should be asked of those applying for unemployment. Want Money??? Do your part!!

WylieKy · « **Reply #32 on:** January 16, 2009, 07:20:32 AM »

I have some interesting reading for you all. Please put any....prejudices against the Sci-Fi genre of literature aside. This is an amazingly good book and covers everything from how to raise, educate, and discipline our children to EARNING your voting franchise. I know that earning your right to vote is not exactly in line with the Constitution....but that is what Amendments are for. Like so many books that have been made into movies, the movie has a passing acquaintance with the book. I have attached a link to view a synopsis of the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

WylieKy · « **Reply #33 on:** January 16, 2009, 10:59:28 AM »

The way Heinlein modeled it in the book, the government was completely composed of civilians. Only "citizens" could vote, hold public office, or be employed in any government position and the only way to earn citizenship was service in the military. The active military members were not eligable to vote until they recieved an honorable discharge or retired. Military service was required, but EVERYONE could join (he didn't go into it, but my guess is that you would have to restrict insane/mentally disabled people) physically disabled were given something to do within their ability.

Non-citizens and Citizens had the same basic rights, but non-citizens could not choose the direction of the country. Non-citizens could become very wealthy, but if they had not given their country the minimum of service they could not vote or be a politician. Hm....no spoiled rich-boy politicians, vastly reduced corporate influence, highschool + level of education to vote......sounds like utopia to me.

powderman · « **Reply #34 on:** January 16, 2009, 01:27:15 PM »

During WW11 my Mom went to work in a munitions factory in Joliet Ill. With her fiance, my Dad, and 3 brothers fighting she felt she needed to do her part. She moved there and stayed with relatives. She lasted a year and a half, her hair and skin turned orange from working with the tnt, or gunpowder. She got so weak she had to crawl up the steps to the bathroom, she almost died. Now she's eaten up with cancer and very sick. Don't know if exposure to all the chemicals involved has anything to do with it or not. My point is that I really doubt that todays generation has the guts to go through what her generation did. She told about the rationing and bartering for goods too. We are a spoiled and soft nation compared to our parents and grandparents. Say a prayer for my Mom if you will. POWDERMAN.

torpedoman · « **Reply #35 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:03:04 PM »

I got drafted but i was already an E4 in the navy. They had a real hard time understanding why i did'nt report.

Cement Man · « **Reply #36 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:09:28 PM »

Quote from: powderman on January 16, 2009, 01:27:15 PM

During WW11 my Mom went to work in a munitions factory in Joliet Ill. With her fiance, my Dad, and 3 brothers fighting she felt she needed to do her part. She moved there and stayed with relatives. She lasted a year and a half, her hair and skin turned orange from working with the tnt, or gunpowder. She got so weak she had to crawl up the steps to the bathroom, she almost died. Now she's eaten up with cancer and very sick. Don't know if exposure to all the chemicals involved has anything to do with it or not. My point is that I really doubt that todays generation has the guts to go through what her generation did. She told about the rationing and bartering for goods too. We are a spoiled and soft nation compared to our parents and grandparents. Say a prayer for my Mom if you will. POWDERMAN.

Prayers will be sent. I wish her peace and comfort.

beerbelly · « **Reply #37 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:20:57 AM »

I am among those that believe that all 18 year old males in the USA should have to do at least two years in the military. I joined the Marines at seventeen. Most likely kept me from becoming a bum and outlaw. Will it straighten out all kids today? No, but I do believe it would save many. It most certainly would make us a stronger country.

Dee · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:51:14 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on January 16, 2009, 12:45:45 AM

Quote from: Westbound on January 15, 2009, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: Swampman on January 15, 2009, 09:28:26 AM
I have an even better idea. Only those who have served, can vote.

Why stop there?? We could also add land ownership requirements and literacy requirements. Then we could revert back to dis-allowing women, blacks, and native americans the right to vote. I'm sure the supreme court won't mind reversing all of its previous rulings on the rights of suffrage.

Oh, and there is a name for a country controlled exclusively by the military. Its called a Military Junta. I'm sure the Libyans love this type of government.

Would you say this country is better off now than it was 50-75 years ago? I wouldn't

Economically it is much worse off now, as 50 to 75 years ago. Back then we were a creditor nation. Now we are the most indebted nation in the world.
Governmentally 50 to 75 years age we basically traded with most of the world, and for the most part, minded our own business, though not always. To day governmentally we have evolved into a preemptive strike military, nation building elitist country, that thinks everyone wants to be like us, whether they do or not, and try to force so called democracy on folks that neither like it or want it.
We don't fight wars, we do police actions that accomplish very little, and for the most part waste our national treasure (our military brothers and sisters), and make unnecessary enemies out of some countries, that are hell bent on killing EACH OTHER. We have in many areas become a common ground enemy of two different factions that were it not for shooting at us, would be shooting at each other.

Fazak · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2009, 06:24:49 AM »

I looked at the biography of the author of the lead article, Tony Blankley, but I couldn't find what branch of the military he was in. I also read that he has 3 children, no ages listed, but from his age it's to be assumed that they've passed the age of 18 by now.

Which branch of the military are his children a part of?

It doesn't appear that Blankley has even been a military man nor that he's a part of a military family,...yet he's in favor of everyone else being forced to be a part of the military.

Is he and his family too good to participate in the same endeavor that he wants everyone else forced into?

alsaqr · « **Reply #40 on:** January 17, 2009, 06:34:05 AM »

Quote

It doesn't appear that Blankley has even been a military man mor that he's a part of a military family,...yet he's in favor of everyone else being forced to be a part of the military.

Military service is not a requirement to be a neo-con.

It is not a requirement for neo-con chicken hawks either. Limbaugh wussed out of the draft due to an anal cyst. Hannity never served, Will never served, neither did Coulter.

Dee · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:19:09 AM »

Fighting is one thing, as is the cause. Fighting for a cause you believe is or can be an entirely different thing. Serving for the sake of serving is not necessarily patriotic. Serving for what one believes in, and out of necessity of preserving that belief is what makes the cause worth while.
All of these labels that are pinned on different groups and individuals, such as neo-con, liberal, conservative, and the childish little distortion of names on some mean nothing to me.
The stand they make on issues are the crux of the matter. Name calling is not progression toward solution, but apathetic inaction toward the problem.
Until folks start ACTING on what they believe, nothing will change.
The politician acts on what he believes by hook or crook. The Muslim acts on what he believes many times by ruthless abandon.
The American citizen TALKS, and lets the politician do the acting. The SOLDIER, pays the dues on the action of the politician, AND complacent inaction of the American voter. That's is at least how I personally see it.

nomosendero · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:44:55 AM »

Quote from: Fazak on January 17, 2009, 06:24:49 AM

I looked at the biography of the author of the lead article, Tony Blankley, but I couldn't find what branch of the military he was in. I also read that he has 3 children, no ages listed, but from his age it's to be assumed that they've passed the age of 18 by now.

Which branch of the military are his children a part of?

It doesn't appear that Blankley has even been a military man nor that he's a part of a military family,...yet he's in favor of everyone else being forced to be a part of the military.

Is he and his family too good to participate in the same endeavor that he wants everyone else forced into?

Some things never change

Heather · « **Reply #43 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:47:00 AM »

Quote from: Dee on January 17, 2009, 07:19:09 AM

Fighting is one thing, as is the cause. Fighting for a cause you believe is or can be an entirely different thing. Serving for the sake of serving is not necessarily patriotic. Serving for what one believes in, and out of necessity of preserving that belief is what makes the cause worth while.
All of these labels that are pinned on different groups and individuals, such as neo-con, liberal, conservative, and the childish little distortion of names on some mean nothing to me.
The stand they make on issues are the crux of the matter. Name calling is not progression toward solution, but apathetic inaction toward the problem.
Until folks start ACTING on what they believe, nothing will change.
The politician acts on what he believes by hook or crook. The Muslim acts on what he believes many times by ruthless abandon.
The American citizen TALKS, and lets the politician do the acting. The SOLDIER, pays the dues on the action of the politician, AND complacent inaction of the American voter. That's is at least how I personally see it.

Good post Dee!

Heather

jlchucker · « **Reply #44 on:** January 17, 2009, 09:23:10 AM »

Quote from: torpedoman on January 16, 2009, 03:03:04 PM

I got drafted but i was already an E4 in the navy. They had a real hard time understanding why i did'nt report.

A similar thing happened to me. I enlisted in the army. While at the reception center at Ft Dix, NJ, my draft notice came in the mail. I wrote them back saying that I couldn't make it because the drill sergeant wouldn't let me go. Never heard any more from the draft office again.

It seems like that term "neocon" is pretty common among hippietraitors, democrats, Bush-haters and those that oppose the military in every possible way. MS, one democrat named Charles Rangel, a member of Congress from NY and also of African descent, has, on numerous occasions, publicly advocated for the return of the military draft. He's a veteran, not exactly always expressive of views that agree with my own, but that having been said, I won't refer to him as a Libtard. In fact, his views about the military and the draft are pretty much in agreement with my own. So, MS, would you call Charles Rangel a "neocon"? What in hell do you mean by neocon, anyway?

Fazak · « **Reply #45 on:** January 17, 2009, 09:53:07 AM »

This Charles Rangel?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/the_rangel_scandal_deepens.html

Charles Rangel, a man who writes federal tax laws as head of the House Ways and Means Committee, not only failed to pay taxes on income he received from a luxury resort property he owns, he financed the purchase with an interest-free loan from a campaign backer who is also a politically active lawyer.

Sounds like just another crook in Congress to me.

He needs to be in prison,...not in the halls of Congress trying to get a buncha of young people forced into military service.

Cement Man · « **Reply #46 on:** January 17, 2009, 11:02:01 AM »

Unless I am missing the point, I take it that Blankley's opinion is that we may need a draft. I believe he also states that he doesn't like it, but believe's it is an imperative due to manpower requirements.

Seems like a fair discussion, the pros and cons of which could be discussed objectively on the merits without entangling everything into the neocon/slavery/crooks/yada-yada. Some of us who posted on the subject are veterans, many are not. Some see a redeeming benefit to military service, others call it slavery. Interesting about Rangel - he is as about as far from me on most issues as anyone could possibly be, but I believe he was quite heroic in the Korean War. I respect that. It means something, but his opinions aren't always right or always wrong because someone doesn't like him.

Well, for whatever it's worth to the point of the discussion, Mr. Blankley states that he has a son who is a 2nd Lt. in the army, apparently a key qualification for expressing an opinion regarding the need for a draft.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/01/an_interview_with_tony_blankle.php?comments=show

Fazak · « **Reply #47 on:** January 17, 2009, 02:39:18 PM »

Anyone who is forced into any type of activity against their will is a slave.

It can be discussed from as many angles as there are,..but the one over-riding fact of the matter is, if you have free will taken from you, you're not free.

Fazak · « **Reply #48 on:** January 17, 2009, 02:41:19 PM »

Some good commentary on the matter:

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul60.html

An excerpt:

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Casull · « **Reply #49 on:** January 17, 2009, 03:44:44 PM »

Quote

Anyone who is forced into any type of activity against their will is a slave.

It can be discussed from as many angles as there are,..but the one over-riding fact of the matter is, if you have free will taken from you, you're not free.

Can't agree with you. Too many "exceptions" for that to be a rule. When people come together as a society for the betterment of all, there are responsibilities that go along with that. Such as serving to defend the whole, taking part on a jury, abiding by the written law. All of these can be seen as impinging on free will, but none are slavery.

powderman · « **Reply #50 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:15:01 PM »

CASULL. Yep, agreed. Scum have the free will to rape rob and mutilate, but it don't make them slaves, just criminals. POWDERMAN.

Fazak · « **Reply #51 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Casull on January 17, 2009, 03:44:44 PM

Quote
Anyone who is forced into any type of activity against their will is a slave.

It can be discussed from as many angles as there are,..but the one over-riding fact of the matter is, if you have free will taken from you, you're not free.

Can't agree with you. Too many "exceptions" for that to be a rule.

No,...there are no exceptions to that rule.

Either a person has free will or they don't.

Those that don't aren't free.

Just because it's a society or a government that robs them of their free will doesn't change the fact that they're not free.

And yes,...it's just that simple.

powderman · « **Reply #52 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:36:19 PM »

fazak. Horsecrap. God gave us all free will but that doesn't mean that we can exercise it. A man might lust after a little girl, but laws prevent him from exercising his so called free will. As long as there are scum on this earth we must have laws to govern our behaviour. POWDERMAN.

Casull · « **Reply #53 on:** January 17, 2009, 04:44:29 PM »

Quote

fazak. Horsecrap. God gave us all free will but that doesn't mean that we can exercise it. A man might lust after a little girl, but laws prevent him from exercising his so called free will. As long as there are scum on this earth we must have laws to govern our behaviour. POWDERMAN.

Exactly. Free will does not equal anarchy. It's that simple.

Fazak · « **Reply #54 on:** January 17, 2009, 05:34:53 PM »

No,... free will doesn't give one the right to infringe on the rights of others.

But any governmental law which isn't in place to protect the rights of the individual is tyranny.

Conscription has been employed by virtually every government that has ever existed,..including Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Fascist Italy,...you name it.

Just because it's *your* government enacting the slavery decree doesn't change the fact that it's slavery.

Just like taxes are extortion,...

Governments rob you,..enslave you,..tyrannize you,.. and if you don't bend over and take it, you're considered unpatriotic.

It's the oldest game in the world,..and every government on the planet plays it.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #55 on:** January 17, 2009, 05:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Fazak on January 17, 2009, 05:34:53 PM

No,... free will doesn't give one the right to infringe on the rights of others.

But any governmental law which isn't in place to protect the rights of the individual is tyranny.

Conscription has been employed by virtually every government that has ever existed,..including Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Fascist Italy,...you name it.

Just because it's *your* government enacting the slavery decreee doesn't change the fact that it's slavery.

Just like taxes are extortion,...

Governments rob you,..enslave you,..tyrannize you,.. and if you don't bend over and take it, you're considered unpatriotic.

It's the oldest game in the world,..and every government on the planet plays it.

I allways thought that a couple years in the service would do all young men good. I myself never served but wish I would have. I have to say you make a great argument and have never looked at it that way. I think after hearing your take on things I happen to agree with you. Dale

Fazak · « **Reply #56 on:** January 17, 2009, 06:00:19 PM »

Quote from: DALESCARPENTRY on January 17, 2009, 05:56:58 PM

Quote from: Fazak on January 17, 2009, 05:34:53 PM
No,... free will doesn't give one the right to infringe on the rights of others.

But any governmental law which isn't in place to protect the rights of the individual is tyranny.

Conscription has been employed by virtually every government that has ever existed,..including Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Fascist Italy,...you name it.

Just because it's *your* government enacting the slavery decreee doesn't change the fact that it's slavery.

Just like taxes are extortion,...

Governments rob you,..enslave you,..tyrannize you,.. and if you don't bend over and take it, you're considered unpatriotic.

It's the oldest game in the world,..and every government on the planet plays it.
I allways thought that a couple years in the service would do all young men good. I myself never served but wish I would have. I have to say you make a great argument and have never looked at it that way. I think after hearing your take on things I happen to agree with you. Dale

Well, Dale,..I'm not saying that the military is either a good or a bad thing.

I've known people who have had good experiences in the military and I've known some people who have had some very bad experiences in the military.

What I'm discussing is whether someone should be *forced* to be in the military,....or anything else, for that matter.

If you're forced to do something against your will,..it's slavery,...

Casull · « **Reply #57 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:46:32 PM »

Quote

But any governmental law which isn't in place to protect the rights of the individual is tyranny.

A conscription law would protect the rights of ALL individuals in the country (since that is the job of the armed services).

Casull · « **Reply #58 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:48:57 PM »

Quote

Conscription has been employed by virtually every government that has ever existed,..including Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Fascist Italy,...you name it.

This is nonsensical. I'm sick of people saying "well, Nazi Germany did it, so it must be bad". Guess what, they used toilet paper and medicine in Nazi Germany. Does that mean wiping your *ss and staying healthy is bad?

alsaqr · « **Reply #59 on:** January 18, 2009, 02:45:19 AM »

Was born in 1939 and I remember WWII pretty well. My Dad and his three brothers all fought in WWII.

Everything was rationed. Toothpaste tubes were made of lead and they were recycled. Folks sacrificed so that US troops could have enough material to win the war. We lived in a rural area of WV. It seemed that at least once a week one of the local soldiers was killed.

Today the wussified populace of the US would not be willing to sacrifice one damn thing in order to win a war. They would sooner surrender to the Red Chinese.

What color was margarine in WWII?