Rangel says reinstate the Draft before Syrian war

Again, all good points, and especially valid where folks are drafted, but when people choose to join the military voluntarily, I find no validity in the distinction. No person is taken off a ship and forced into the British Navy. No rich person is able to buy their exemption from the Civil War Draft. No today's military is a vocational choice. Every vocation has some risks. Nobody suddenly demands reverence for the risks that a lumberjack is exposed. The lumberjack and the high school senior who chose the Navy made those choices of their own free will.

I think the paradigm was much different when people were drafted to serve their country, or during a time of war enlist to fight to defend their country. The vast majority of folks in an all volunteer military make a conscious vocational career choice after weighing the benefits and risks. Respect is still deserved, but the former reverence for military service is a faded concept since the all volunteer military.

Bob wrote:I'm for the draft as long as Rangel's children and grandchildren and the children and grandchildren (and spouses if age eligible) of ALL the politicians and ALL the industry leaders and all the wealthy are ALL equally eligible.  And that includes Obama and Romney and ALL the others.  And only IF they do combat duty like everyone else.

I agree and will add that there should be no exemptions or deferments, for any reason even college, for their kin.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScisGFllPY

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:I'm for the draft as long as Rangel's children and grandchildren and the children and grandchildren (and spouses if age eligible) of ALL the politicians and ALL the industry leaders and all the wealthy are ALL equally eligible.  And that includes Obama and Romney and ALL the others.  And only IF they do combat duty like everyone else.

I agree and will add that there should be no exemptions or deferments, for any reason even college, for their kin.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScisGFllPY

 

I forgot to add that the staunchest Obama supporters and their families should also be the next in line after all the big wigs families.

I'm sure the IRS can help out the draft board with who's who and who should be picked first in this instance.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuqlRcmmyPw

2seaoat wrote:Again, all good points, and especially valid where folks are drafted, but when people choose to join the military voluntarily, I find no validity in the distinction.   No person is taken off a ship and forced into the British Navy.  No rich person is able to buy their exemption from the Civil War Draft.  No today's military is a vocational choice.   Every vocation has some risks.  Nobody suddenly demands reverence for the risks that a lumberjack is exposed.  The lumberjack and the high school senior who chose the Navy made those choices of their own free will.  

I think the paradigm was much different when people were drafted to serve their country, or during a time of war enlist to fight to defend their country.  The vast majority of folks in an all volunteer military make a conscious vocational career choice after weighing the benefits and risks.   Respect is still deserved, but the former reverence for military service is a faded concept since the all volunteer military.

I didn't say anything about reverence.  I don't think any individual should be revered just because of their occupation.  There are doctor jerks, military jerks, teacher jerks, lumberjack jerks, etc..

When you say that the military is a vocational choice, you're right.  Except, I have seen people who wanted to make a career of the military  forced out before retirement.  Unlike a civilian who is layed off, a military person who is forced out of the military due to a reduction in forces does not have the option of finding another job in their chosen profession.  

There are so many differences between military and civilian life and I am not sure that someone who hasn't lived or experienced a military life really understands what it's like.  Just as I don't know what being the spouse of a commercial fisherman is really like. The moving, the deployments, the separations from family, the kids of military people who have to pick up and change school districts every 2 or 3 years. The military is unlike any civilian lifestyle.

2seaoat wrote:All good points Pace, but the truth is that 98% of military face no more risk than civilians in their day to day jobs.   If you factor the deaths by terrorists attacks since 2000, and combine that with high risk civilian vocations, I would say that the average person enlisted for military service is safer than civilians in our higher risk vocations, and like the misconception that police and fire are high risk, you will find commercial fishermen, and lumberjacks face far more danger than military service, and their contributions are needed to keep this nation strong despite those risks.

Other than the DailyKOS or "The Nation" etc., please post your source and link to that information.

Thank you.

The all volunteer military is working fine.

This is so incredibly typical of the government.  Find something working well with no problems...and the government will seek to find a "solution" to a non-existent problem.

Why don't they spend their time SLASHING SPENDING?

Other than the DailyKOS or "The Nation" etc., please post your source and link to that information.

Thank you.

No problem. I do not even know what the Daily Kos is, and the only reference I have ever had to the Nation is a guest I have seen on the Ed Shultz show, are these reliable publications?

Here you go:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Please go to table 4 to see the deaths from 1980 to 2008 per year in the military

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/
This will get you the death rates in the higher risk civilian jobs

In 1980 there were approximately 2000 deaths out of two million, in 2008 there were approximately 1400 deaths with 1.4 million serving. About 100 deaths per 100k. This average varies a bit between hot wars and peace time, but it gives a benchmark. There is about an 8% variance over war conditions and some of the more risky civilian jobs. During the gaps between hot wars, the civilian jobs are higher risk which 95 until 2002 clearly indicated that you were safer in military service than a number of civilian jobs. This Illusion of greater risk to our military over civilian employment is further being skewed by the military use of civilian contractors.

These are commonly known stats. Did you really not have knowledge of the same, or were you simply wasting my time.

Charlie Rangel has been trying to get  the draft reinstated for years and years now.  He actually thinks that if it were reinstated,the sons and daughters of  congressmen would have to go to war.

He obviously doesn't remember Vietnam very well if he thinks that. The rich always manage to keep their kids  home and safe. It's a stupid idea.
Sending young men and women into the military who were not equipped to be taught to kill indiscriminately  wrecked nearly the whole Vietnam generation and caused drug  use that still continues today.

Our military is paid to kill, no matter what a lot  of forum members like to think.  If  they're going to kill, they need to be volunteers who are willing to do so.
We seem, sadly,  to have enough young people to fill those slots without a draft. I don't think it says good things about our society, but then I'm supposed to be anti-military, so I might as  well be the one to say that.

Rangel is wrong about at least this one thing.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScisGFllPY

 

That's a coincidence. I got to surfing youtube music performances earlier today and hit on an outdoor Fogerty concert where he had Jerry Garcia on stage with him. Got all into googling Fogerty and learned he came out of El Cerrito, CA. With his songs and lyrics I always thought he came out of the south until today.

bluemoon wrote:Charlie Rangel has been trying to get  the draft reinstated for years and years now.  He actually thinks that if it were reinstated,the sons and daughters of  congressmen would have to go to war.

He obviously doesn't remember Vietnam very well if he thinks that. The rich always manage to keep their kids  home and safe. It's a stupid idea.
Sending young men and women into the military who were not equipped to be taught to kill indiscriminately  wrecked nearly the whole Vietnam generation and caused drug  use that still continues today.

Our military is paid to kill, no matter what a lot  of forum members like to think.  If  they're going to kill, they need to be volunteers who are willing to do so.
We seem, sadly,  to have enough young people to fill those slots without a draft. I don't think it says good things about our society, but then I'm supposed to be anti-military, so I might as  well be the one to say that.

Rangel is wrong about at least this one thing.

But the hawks and right-wingers will always defend that by emphasizing the words "they volunteered". For them, when some assholes in Washington send those kids to their deaths for no reason, that volunteering bullshit excuses it all.

Bob wrote:

bluemoon wrote:Charlie Rangel has been trying to get  the draft reinstated for years and years now.  He actually thinks that if it were reinstated,the sons and daughters of  congressmen would have to go to war.

He obviously doesn't remember Vietnam very well if he thinks that. The rich always manage to keep their kids  home and safe. It's a stupid idea.
Sending young men and women into the military who were not equipped to be taught to kill indiscriminately  wrecked nearly the whole Vietnam generation and caused drug  use that still continues today.

Our military is paid to kill, no matter what a lot  of forum members like to think.  If  they're going to kill, they need to be volunteers who are willing to do so.
We seem, sadly,  to have enough young people to fill those slots without a draft. I don't think it says good things about our society, but then I'm supposed to be anti-military, so I might as  well be the one to say that.

Rangel is wrong about at least this one thing.

But the hawks and right-wingers will always defend that by emphasizing the words "they volunteered".  For them,  when some assholes in Washington send those kids to their deaths for no reason,  that volunteering bullshit excuses it all.

I know that's true Bob but they didn't care any more about killing our young people when the kids were drafted  and forced to be  there. Warmongers are just warmongers, unless they personally are the ones  who face the weapons. Now if we  could personally put some Congressmen on the front lines in a real war, we might just see a lot  more  of them changing their  tune.

2seaoat wrote:Other than the DailyKOS or "The Nation" etc., please post your source and link to that information.

Thank you.

No problem.  I do not even know what the Daily Kos is, and the only reference I have ever had to the Nation is a guest I have seen on the Ed Shultz show, are these reliable publications?

Here you go:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Please go to table 4 to see the deaths from 1980 to 2008 per year in the military

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/
This will get you the death rates in the higher risk civilian jobs

In 1980 there were approximately 2000 deaths out of two million, in 2008 there were approximately 1400 deaths with 1.4 million serving.  About 100 deaths per 100k.  This average varies a bit between hot wars and peace time, but it gives a benchmark.  There is about an 8% variance over war conditions and some of the more risky civilian jobs.  During the gaps between hot wars, the civilian jobs are higher risk which 95 until 2002 clearly indicated that you were safer in military service than a number of civilian jobs.  This Illusion of greater risk to our military over civilian employment is further being skewed by the military use of civilian contractors.

These are commonly known stats.  Did you really not have knowledge of the same, or were you simply wasting my time.

There are a lot of dangerous jobs, but it's not just deaths that count as being dangerous.  Injuries count as well. Working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, but you won't find it on most dangerous jobs lists.   And a lot of military deaths happen during training, not battle.   It is said that a person in the military has a greater chance of dying in an accident than in battle, and that is probably true.  None of this changes the fact that most military members face issues that most civilians don't have to deal with.

I got really pissed off the other day when I read in the paper that our civilian court system is now establishing VETERAN's Courts, for vets who break civilian laws.  The article described the courts as "touchy feely" courts where vets could get counseling on drug abuse, opportunities for employment, etc, along with softer punishments for their crimes.

Talk about becoming a military dictatorship,when the military can get special treatment from a civilian court even  after committing a crime, we're headed in that general direction.

It's  scary how much hero worship this country has had over  the last decade for our "warriors." 
A strong military presence is a necessary evil  at best, when considered  from a completely moralistic  perspective.

Veterans Courts

http://www.nadcp.org/MilitaryTimes%20-Veterans-Treatment-Courts

I don't have a problem with them, if they work. I would be against rapists or murderers getting any kind of light treatment or special treatment but I don't see that being the case with this article.

Mr Ichi wrote:But a lot of vets do not play the "I remember when or you did this to me game" or ask for "special" treatment.  I am a Vietnam Vet.  I dont have a hat or shirt of anything that reminds me of those days. My uniform has long since been discarded.  I almost never say anything about it.  The only reason I speak out here is because I am some what anonymous.  The Government owes me nothing.  It is true that that I use the VA for help with my eyes.  I dont not claim any disability or ask for anything else.  I am not alone. There are millions of Vets just like me.  I am very grateful for the help that the VA provides me, but they and you do not owe me anything.  If VA was to drop me tomorrow, I would just suck it up and move on.  I would still be thankful for the help I have received.
I totally under stand why people dislike the Military.  Speak out if you wish.  You will not hurt my feelings or ask any questions that I have not asked my self a 1,000 times.  All is good.  

I understand and you are absolutely right.  I don't think most vets think that the government or anyone owes them anything. The vets that I know don't speak as if anyone owes them anything. I do think that vets with service related injuries should not be neglected by the government.

Nekochan wrote:Veterans Courts

http://www.nadcp.org/MilitaryTimes%20-Veterans-Treatment-Courts

I don't have a problem with them, if they work.  I would be against rapists or murderers getting any kind of light treatment or special treatment but I don't see that being the case with this article.

You honestly do not see a problem with a separate system of justice for some Americans who will be treated with kid gloves over other Americans?  Somehow, I guessed that.  Our system of Justice is the one place in America that absolutely guarantees equality for all citizens of this nation.
That includes veterans or sewage workers or school teachers.  To establish a separate justice system for one group of Americans over another is as unConstitutional a concept as ever popped it's nasty head up in this country.
Separate is not equal,if you believe  that, you are a fool. The article in the PNJ stated that the judges in these courts offer special treatment programs  and often no jail time for vets for drug abuse, while regular citizens in our state justice system are offered no such privileges.

You're out of your mind if you think it's either American or Constitutional.
I kind of knew that already though.

Nekochan wrote:Veterans Courts

http://www.nadcp.org/MilitaryTimes%20-Veterans-Treatment-Courts

I don't have a problem with them, if they work.  I would be against rapists or murderers getting any kind of light treatment or special treatment but I don't see that being the case with this article.

BTW, of course you don't see a problem from that article. It's from the miliatry times.   Good God.

I don't see the difference between veterans courts and drug courts except the hatred shown by some for any kind of benefits or help that vets might receive.

bluemoon wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Veterans Courts

http://www.nadcp.org/MilitaryTimes%20-Veterans-Treatment-Courts

I don't have a problem with them, if they work.  I would be against rapists or murderers getting any kind of light treatment or special treatment but I don't see that being the case with this article.

BTW, of course you don't see a problem from that article. It's from the miliatry times.   Good God.

Military Times is awful, I know. Good God, how dare I! It has the word MILITARY in it!  

http://www.bhcpns.org/SubstanceAbuse/Adult/DrugCourt.aspx

Really, this is just horrible and unconstitutional. What are they thinking?
Of course, it's not nearly as horrible as VETERANS Courts. Those are the most evil and despicable of all courts.

No, but it's obviously a "pro-military" newspaper.  Don't  act like a fool.

I had no doubt you would not see why veterans should not have rights in court that civilians don't have, because I've read your posts and I know your leanings. It's the same issue that Seaoat was arguing the other  day. You are not capable of seeing equality between certain groups of people, whether it be the ones he was speaking of or whether it involves the military vs civilians.

You simply don't believe that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law, because they are not equal in your viewpoint.

There is no point in discussing it with you, because you don't have the rationality to see your deeply flawed nature on certain issues.

And it's certainly too late to start the discussion tonight.

bluemoon wrote:No, but it's obviously a "pro-military" newspaper.  Don't  act like a fool.

I had no doubt you would not see why veterans should not have rights in court that civilians don't have, because I've read your posts and I know your leanings. It's the same issue that Seaoat was arguing the other  day. You are not capable of seeing equality between certain groups of people, whether it be the ones he was speaking of or whether it involves the military vs civilians.

You simply don't believe that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law, because they are not equal in your viewpoint.

There is no point in discussing it with you, because you don't have the rationality to see your deeply flawed nature on certain issues.

And it's certainly too late to start the discussion tonight.

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't think veterans who have drug or addiction issues and end up in Veterans Court are any less equal under the law than civilians who have drug or addiction issues and end up in Drug Court.