PDA

View Full Version : Why Don't Elite Americans Serve?



thedrifter
11-12-06, 06:07 PM
OPINION

Why Don't Elite Americans Serve?

Sun, Nov. 12, 2006 Posted: 10:25:08 AM EST

When the son of John McCain announced he was joining the Marines a few months ago, it made headlines across the country—not only because his father was famous, but also because his decision was so unusual.

Few sons of senators serve in the military these days, nor—with few exceptions—do the sons of congressmen or presidents or governors, or New York Times editors. They’re too busy doing what they consider more important things—like attending Yale, or running their father’s company. And yet, these are often the very same people who one day are going to lead our country. This situation is not only inherently unfair, but also deeply dangerous.

Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer are the authors of AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service—and How It Hurts Our Country. They argue in the book that from our country’s founding onward, serving one’s country in the military has always been expected—especially among the scions of the upper class, what a previous generation called noblesse oblige. As evidence, the authors point to the fact that, as recently as the 1950s, half the graduating classes of Princeton and Harvard—the sons of bankers and businessmen—signed up for a tour of duty, as I myself did after graduating from Brown. Today, fewer than one percent do. Overwhelmingly, those who serve today are from the middle and working class, rural and small town.

Why is this dangerous? Well, the authors write, wealthy elites who avoid military service will someday be running America—and their ignorance about what our military endures or is capable of may cause them to misuse our troops. Studies show that they tend to look down on those who do serve, and they put too small a value on their willingness to serve, why they serve, and on what this service gives in return.

Frank Schaeffer, the son of the late Francis Schaeffer, admits that when his own son announced his plans to become a Marine, he was horrified—and embarrassed. After all, most of his friends’ kids were planning to attend elite colleges. But then he met some of the men his son served with.

As Schaeffer writes, “I started to understand that it was degrading to have to justify John’s being a Marine to people who struck me as snobs—in other words, to people like me, people who never lifted a finger for anybody. It began to occur to me,” Schaeffer concludes, “that maybe something was wrong with me and not with [my son] John.”

Ditto, writes Roth-Douquet. When she—a Princeton grad and former Clinton appointee—told friends she was planning to marry a Marine officer, they were shocked. But then, September 11 happened. As Doth-Douquet puts it, “Friends who previously hinted that [my husband] should probably find responsible work in the civilian world were now suddenly glad to have him in the Marine Corps.”

Schaeffer and Roth-Douquet are right: It’s wrong for an entire class of Americans to consider themselves exempt from serving their country—and then to expect to lead it. Tomorrow—Veterans Day—we ought to reflect not only on the sacrifices made by earlier generations of veterans, but also on how we can spread out the sacrifice more fairly among all classes of Americans.

America’s most privileged youth should remember something their ancestors well understood: To whom much is given, much is expected—and that applies to serving their country.

Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist

Ellie

rb1651
11-13-06, 08:16 AM
Great article. This is exactly why I am all for a mandatory 2 year service obligation for all physically and mentally able youths of America. I know some will think this is harsh, but it doesn't necessarily mean military service. It could be to the Peace Corps, Civil Air Patrol, volunteer firefighter, etc., to give our youth a start in life that is down the path of knowing what it means to live in a country where helping or serving in the public interests overrides the desire to "look out" for oneself. Just my opinion.

jryanjack
11-13-06, 08:39 AM
Not a bad idea - alot of countries have a mandatory service requirement - it is a good idea in my book too!

hrscowboy
11-13-06, 09:26 AM
I see nothing wrong with a 2 year deal on all able bodied youths being in the military, I am all for it, I think if we make it a deal where you do 2 years right after high school then we help them with college.

jinelson
11-13-06, 10:58 AM
Some Elite Americans Served!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/jinelson/24425-John-Kerry-Washington-Elitist.jpg

Senator John Hanoi Kerry served and he has a fist full of medals to prove it!

sgtrock1970
11-13-06, 11:10 AM
The ELITE OF AMERICA ARE NOW SERVING, They're called MARINES.

Zulu 36
11-13-06, 11:26 AM
The ELITE OF AMERICA ARE NOW SERVING, They're called MARINES.

I agree, Brother. Perhaps the proper term to apply to those others would be effete instead of elite.

ef·fete (American Heritage Dictionary)
adj.

1. Depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness; exhausted: the final, effete period of the baroque style.
2. Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence: an effete group of self-professed intellectuals.
3. Overrefined; effeminate.
4. No longer productive; infertile.

sgtrock1970
11-13-06, 11:28 AM
Being from a working Family (MIDDLE CLASS) during the sixties and seventies, I think my Dad ( he served in the Navy during WWII)expected us to serve although he didn't really voice it. Three out of the four sons served, Marines, Army and Air Force and my youngest brother now regrets he didn't. These days where service is the exception rather than the rule the young men and women who don't serve, are missing something that will enrich their life and they will never be able to experience. I say the American elite "How can you appreciate freedom and lead unless you have walked the walk."

FistFu68
11-13-06, 11:49 AM
:evilgrin: THERE ARE ONLY TWO KIND'S OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD,THOSE WHO RUN;AND THOSE WHO STAND AND FIGHT! (SEMPER~FIDELIS):iwo:

ggyoung
11-13-06, 11:54 AM
I can only think of just one person who was "elite" that served in Vietnam. That is Cpt. Walker who was C.O. of Inda Battery 3/12 1964-65. He was the grandson of Hyrm Walker the ahiskey maker. He gave all his pay from the Marines to Navy Relefe. Good man and a good Marine.

Zulu 36
11-13-06, 01:42 PM
I knew a GySgt (whose name I can't remember, but wouldn't mention if I did) who came from a very well to do family. He had a bachelor's degree and could have looked forward to a life of leisure if he chose. He said about a year after college he was so bored with life and felt like he was contributing nothing to the world. So he joined the Marines as an enlisted man and refused offers to be commissioned. He had two Vietnam tours, was well decorated, and highly respected in his MOS. His parents loved him, but thought he was crazy.

He bought or built a house outside of every base he was stationed at (with pool, hot tub, etc). When he transfered, he rented the house out for next to nothing to a married Marine in his unit. He owned five or six houses around the U.S., all rented for pennies to Marines. He never evicted anyone when he moved back to the same base, just got another house. "Tax write-offs" he called them.

His catered house parties were spectacular to attend and he held several per year. He made everyone at his parties feel like they were "the elite".

His paychecks likewise went to Navy Relief.

ggyoung
11-13-06, 01:53 PM
Zulu 36------------Marines likethis are very few and far between.

Gary Hall
11-13-06, 08:12 PM
Horselady, thank you for the observation, your comments are much agreed with and appreciated. I can truthfully report that a high light of my time was to be driving down an Israeli road during the 80's and come upon a hitch-hiking young Israeli soldier, carrying a loaded M-16, as they all did. The young soldier, in uniform, could not have been as much as 20 years old and was a beautiful female. I wonder how many gun control and Military dodging Americans can imagine, realize and appreciate this scenario, much less be confronted by, or participate in, such a circumstance. Gary Hall, Tyler, TX

SgtHMH
11-13-06, 08:41 PM
I like the idea of having two year service, but the only problem is that. You will have the cry babys, it will be called a forced draft. The ranks will be coming and going. Boot Camp, then School that is almost one year right there. I think three year service would better for active duty and then inactive. Sound off.

Sgt. Hoss

10thzodiac
11-13-06, 10:49 PM
"Is a young man bound to serve his country in war? In addition to his legal duty there is perhaps also a moral duty, but it is very obscure. What is called his country is only its government and that government consists merely of professional politicians, a parasitical and anti-social class of men. They never sacrifice themselves for their country. They make all wars, but very few of them ever die in one. If it is the duty of a young man to serve his country under all circumstances then it is equally the duty of an enemy young man to serve his. Thus we come to a moral contradiction and absurdity so obvious that even clergymen and editorial writers sometimes notice it."
—H.L. Mencken

SgtHMH
11-13-06, 11:26 PM
Since 1775 before there was even a formal US Goverment. US service men and women made this country what it was and is today. If it was not for our veterans of the past, we would be controled or run by something else. Hitler almost over ran the world with his three Axis powers. If it was not for the military doing their thing, we would have been over run. In every war US troops have done and said some outstanding things. We oh it to them to keep this country and their honor going. The military is the one that made this country. Everyone should have to pick up a weapon, stand a post and do their duty in what ever service it is in. Not who they are or were they come from, but because of our freedoms, our past and that we are Americans. Freedom has a taste the protected will never know, because of the ones that have to fight for it or had to fight for it.

Sgt. Hoss

greensideout
11-13-06, 11:33 PM
What is called his country is only its government and that government consists merely of professional politicians, a parasitical and anti-social class of men.
—H.L. Mencken


With the view that this country is nothing more then the writer's depiction, his conclusion is self made. I beleive that the country is much more then that.
I believe that our country is about the people and a vast land of beauty and plenty for all that seek it's bounty. Our country is about freedom to worship and to seek one's own will without fear. Yes, it's worth fighting for because there is no other place in this world that your dreams are without limit but it doesn't come or remain for free. It must be defended. Freedom is the reward for service to our nation.

jinelson
11-14-06, 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by 10thzodiac
What is called his country is only its government and that government consists merely of professional politicians, a parasitical and anti-social class of men.
—H.L. Mencken

Why is that except for once or twice you are unable to give your feelings or opinions and you always have to cut and paste the quote of another?

Just Wondering

Jim

6yrforMar
11-14-06, 08:49 AM
I think all young Americans should have to serve in the military for at least 2-years.The problem we have now a-days is we live in a entitlement society.Just the other day I was talking to someone[before the election],he told me his son is a WEST POINT grad.,he already did one tour in afganistan and now was going to Iraq.The individual stated Bush should not have invaded Iraq which I aggreed,but I said we should finish what we started and this guy snapped out and sceamed at me like a banshee.I can see him being upset that his son was going to Iraq,but his son did not have to get a free education at West Point either.People want everything for nothing its owed thats the entitlement attitude.

10thzodiac
11-14-06, 09:30 AM
Why is that except for once or twice you are unable to give your feelings or opinions and you always have to cut and paste the quote of another?

Just Wondering

Jim

Jim, I disagree that my quotes or in your case photo-posting is not our feelings or opinions.

Is the kettle calling the pot black ?

Again Jim, I think we are both smart and lazy enough, that we can find a way to get a task done double quick and in the least taxing manner possible, provided it appealed to our laziness.

In regards to: "Why is that except for once or twice you are unable to give your feelings or opinions and you always have to cut and paste the quote of another?" ~ Jim

Jim, this might be an original, so stand by: "Success is not worrying about what someone else is doing, but worrying about what you are doing" ~

JUST THINKING http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif

SF
Richard

jinelson
11-14-06, 09:57 AM
Touche Richard your my favorite lib. Im glad you noticed my flicks lol.
:D

ggyoung
11-14-06, 05:15 PM
Remember back in WW2 Capt.Roseavelt was the XO of the I belive 2ed Raider Batallon. This was the Presadents son.

FistFu68
11-15-06, 04:58 AM
:evilgrin: IM NOT A FORTUNATE SON Y'ALL:evilgrin:

b0x-k1ck4
11-15-06, 11:42 AM
Great article. This is exactly why I am all for a mandatory 2 year service obligation for all physically and mentally able youths of America. I know some will think this is harsh, but it doesn't necessarily mean military service. It could be to the Peace Corps, Civil Air Patrol, volunteer firefighter, etc., to give our youth a start in life that is down the path of knowing what it means to live in a country where helping or serving in the public interests overrides the desire to "look out" for oneself. Just my opinion.

I could not AGREE with you more, in fact the idea of manditory service always takes the focus of my politically based areguments here at my work place. Furthermore as of late it has become an increasingly popular sentiment among veterans who are convinced that polititions would be a bit more sensitive when making strategic decisions as a result. Obviously the greatest benfit would be to those who aspire to acheive the highest office in the nation.

My $0.02:thumbup:

mike christy
11-15-06, 02:53 PM
I also agree that a two year enlistment would benefit the youth of our country; they do not have the self respect and motivation needed to be truly successful in life. The schools are no longer willing or able to provide the necessary discipline and education that the real world requires, and it seems to me that most parents no longer care.
<O:p></O:p>
When I am interviewing for new employee’s, I always look for prior military service or a farm background, if they have either, I know that I will have a better than average employee.
<O:p></O:p>
Semper Fi

10thzodiac
11-15-06, 04:32 PM
If and when the next great great depression arrives maybe they'll reinstate the CCC camps, but the way the jails are filling up, I wouldn't be surprised to see another type of labor camp first.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Ccc_we_can_take_it.jpg/200px-Ccc_we_can_take_it.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ccc_we_can_take_it.jpg)

"The slogan of the Civilian Conservation Corps is 'We can take it!' Building strong bodies is a major CCC objective. More than half the enrollees who entered CCC the last year were seventeen years of age. Work, calisthenics, marching drill, good food, and medical care feature the CCC health program."

Although the CCC was probably the most popular New Deal program, it never became a permanent agency. The Gallup poll of April 18, 1936, asked, "Are you in favor of the CCC camps?" 82% said "yes", including 92% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.

rb1651
11-16-06, 06:56 AM
10th, I must have been sleeping during American History on that one. Good bit of trivia there!! :thumbup:

DWG
11-16-06, 09:37 AM
Re; The CCC was a VOLUNTARY organization made up of men who wanted jobs and were willing to work. Disciplinary problems were kicked out of the program ASAP. In the south we still have bridges to nowhere in the middle of nowhere that were built as busy work for the gov. This was a socialist gimmick by the Roosevelt Administration to try to counter communist agitation in the country, but at least it did allow those that were willing to make a wage to feed their familys and a lot of projects were of some value (logging, cleaning up and establishing National Parks, etc.) A similar program was tried in the 60s (the America Corps? as opposed to the Peace Corps). It was rife with drugs, gangs and thugs. I knew some guys that had been in in and they had no fond memories. Unfortunately these things are run by PC happy liberals now(in the 60s) and there is no discipline or punishment for unacceptable behavior. You cannot force people into a situation where they refuse to participate and expect any good to come from it. The draft during Viet Nam should have proved this beyond any doubt. I think that kids today should perform some sort of community service but I'm afraid too many of them are too spoiled to be of any use. They want equal out come, not equal opportunity. Few are really willing to work for something anymore. This is one reason our present military is so much better than in years past-the brightest, hardest working and WILLING make up the ranks.(Interesting footnote my father was in the army in the 30s and they cut the pay of all military ~25% to pay for the CCC; he went from $21.00/mth to $17.00-how happy was he?)

outlaw3179
11-16-06, 10:33 AM
I just drove by Best Buy, and Ive seen in the news that at Wal-Mart and other retail shops there are lines of people camping out and waiting for the new Playstation 3. Heres and idea..get your f*cking monkeys asses up and go do something. I totally agree with a minimum of 2 years service. Right now do you think any Marine in Iraq gives a rats azz about the new PS3. Some people really need to get their priorities straight.

DWG
11-16-06, 10:39 AM
Right now do you think any Marine in Iraq gives a rats azz about the new PS3.

I sent my old PS2 to some Marines in Fallujah-they're loving it, when they get a chance to mess with it.

:D

outlaw3179
11-16-06, 10:42 AM
Oh no dont get me wrong I enjoyed playing it when we had that tiny bit of downtime as well, but do you thing any of those Marines if they had a chance to be at home would be sitting around in a f*cking line waiting for a playstation when then could be out getting pussy or enjoying life? Riddle me that?

DWG
11-16-06, 10:44 AM
They might use their Ipod while waiting in line for pussy!:banana:

outlaw3179
11-16-06, 10:46 AM
lol...there you go. Marines always multi tasking taking the initiative.

DWG
11-16-06, 10:49 AM
As you say "small price to pay"

FistFu68
11-16-06, 02:21 PM
:evilgrin: OR, COULD IT BE;THAT THEY ARE CHICKEN~CHIT~COWARD'S? :evilgrin:

10thzodiac
11-16-06, 10:28 PM
:evilgrin: OR, COULD IT BE;THAT THEY ARE CHICKEN~CHIT~COWARD'S? :evilgrin:

"Or Smart" ~ John Kerry

FistFu68
11-16-06, 11:35 PM
:evilgrin: WHY IN THE FUC~DID YOU JOIN~SMARTAZZ ? :evilgrin: OR DID YOU GET DRAFTED DUMMY ? :D

thedrifter
11-17-06, 08:08 AM
Military draft still looms: Recruiting for volunteer force should be more flexible

Steve Hammons
November 16, 2006

There are voices in Congress, the U.S. military and elsewhere advocating for increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Even with the Army now using new, more flexible standards for potential recruits, will there soon be calls for reactivating the military draft? Or, can recruiting efforts for the all-volunteer force avoid the need for a draft?

Testifying before Congress yesterday, top U.S. commander for Iraq and chief of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. John Abizaid said, "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."

In that statement, Abizaid reflected what some in Congress and elsewhere have advocated – increasing the size of the U.S. military, particularly the Army and Marines, to provide personnel for current and future U.S. military operations, missions and activities around the world.

Simultaneously with discussion of increasing the size of the Army and Marines, recruiting of new personnel and retention of current personnel (including in the reserves and National Guard) has created challenges, particularly for the Army.

This is believed to be related to repeated stressful deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and the deaths of and severe injuries to thousands of, primarily, Army and Marine Corps personnel.

However, the Marines, being a much smaller force than the Army, and with the prestige and attraction of an elite organization, is still able to meet its recruiting goals.

Reactivating the military draft has been discussed by Democrats and Republicans. The pros and cons of the draft, the size of the U.S. military, along with the scope of current and future U.S. military operations worldwide are certain to be subjects of study and debate by Congress, think tanks, military leadership and the American people in the days and months ahead.

RECRUTING SERGEANT OF LAST RESORT

The need and/or desire for reactivating the military draft seems to be based partially on the requirements to adequately staff the Army in its current size or for expanded Army and Marine forces. (Of course, a bigger Army and Marine Corps for an unending global expansion of U.S. military operations and presence is a subject for scrutiny and review.)

Another motivation for a draft, expressed by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) among others, is that the Army and the military generally, as well as society, would benefit by a more comprehensive and balanced make-up of personnel that more accurately reflect American society.

This is part of the concern that the military, particularly the Army, risks being an organization that does not reflect the social, economic, educational and ethnic demographics of the general society.

Although the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all have many well-educated members from all kinds of backgrounds, it is true that the services do provide upward mobility and opportunities for young men and women from disadvantaged educational, social and economic backgrounds.

For those without the opportunity to pursue higher education or other well-paying job opportunities, the Army and the other services are an option that many consider and take advantage of.

Typically, the Air Force and Navy meet recruiting goals easily, and they are able to be selective about their recruiting. Both forces are highly technical, provide a relatively desirable environment and, generally speaking, are not on the ground doing the front-line fighting.

Exceptions include Navy and Air Force special operations groups, Navy medics who serve with Marine units and some other Air Force and Navy personnel. Pilots and air crews, both for fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, always face various levels of danger.

The Army and Marines also incorporate many advanced technologies and many diverse opportunities in their operations. The Army particularly includes a wide range of jobs.

However, a large part of the Army and Marine Corps missions include being on the ground, face-to-face with adversaries in a kill or be killed situation. The conditions can often be rough and bloody.

For these reasons, the Army and Marines are often considered a large part of “the tip of the spear” and though many people choose to be front-line warriors, many others do not find it appealing.

As a result, especially in a war such as the Iraq War, many potential volunteers think twice about the prospect of being killed or severely wounded, killing others, and seeing innocent civilians (including many children) killed and terribly injured.

In conditions such as these, the idea of a military draft becomes the recruiting sergeant of last resort, as was the case during the Vietnam War.

FLEXIBLE RECRUITING, CREATIVE THINKING

Meanwhile, the real recruiting sergeants have been given some leeway to bring people into the military who are older, up to just under age 42.

New opportunities have been created for non-citizens to serve in the military and earn citizenship.

People can also be recruited who may score lower on aptitude tests, may have had some scrapes with the police or some exposure to common recreational drugs and substances.

This has been pointed to as a sign of lowered standards for the Army. In some sense, this is true. In other ways, these are simply more flexible standards.

In addition, the new guidelines may provide valuable opportunities for these potential recruits, assuming they are not killed or mutilated in Iraq, nor come home with severe psychiatric and emotional problems, which are real risks.

These flexible standards and other creative thinking might also help avoid the reactivation of a military draft.

Consider these most recent changes in recruiting guidelines. A person might score low on an aptitude test for many reasons. Maybe they were not the best student in school. Maybe they don’t take tests well. Maybe their reading skills are deficient or their aptitudes and gifts lie in other kinds of areas.

Many average or below average students in high school have gone on to do very well in higher education or other endeavors.

For potential recruits who have been arrested or even incarcerated for a time, this does not necessarily make them worthless as a member of the military.

Many fine people had run-ins with the police when they were teenagers or adults. The seriousness and nature of the behavior and offenses are what should be evaluated.

Even for older teens and adults recently or currently incarcerated, the military should be an option.

Many were convicted of crimes such as minor thefts, drug possession and use, sales of small amounts of drugs and other offenses that do not necessarily indicate the person is a danger to society or cannot become an effective member of the military.

This concept is not new. During the Vietnam War, many judges gave offenders the option of prison or the Army or Marines.

Though this did create many morale problems in these services during that war, so did the draft. So did the nature of the Vietnam War.

The U.S. is now the one country in the world with the largest percentage of its population locked up. Another huge percentage is on probation or parole.

Many of these are men and women grew up in underprivileged neighborhoods, went to poor schools and came from problematic family backgrounds.

This does not mean they cannot be contributing members of the military. In fact, history has shown that these backgrounds often provide intense motivation for success and achievement.

For these kinds of individuals, carefully evaluated and screened, the military offers a tightly structured and supervised environment. The supervision is more thorough than any parole officer could provide.

There are opportunities to get a high school diploma or GED, receive valuable training, learn positive values and gain other useful skills and experiences.

Creative ideas like offering people within the criminal justice system the opportunity to serve in the military can provide good options for those individuals and serve society in several beneficial ways.

We reduce the size of the jail and prison populations. We screen for appropriate candidates for the military. We build better citizens through this process, thereby enhancing the fabric of American society.

Until the day comes when the U.S. will not need to have forces around the world and be involved in actions like the Iraq War, outside-the-box thinking about military recruitment can help our society and avoid the very problematic prospect of a military draft.

Because no matter what benefits to society and the military a draft might bring, there is no avoiding the bottom line: The government, the state, comes to you and takes you against your will, or takes your son or daughter, or nephew or niece, or the kid next door, possibly to death or terrible injuries and psychiatric trauma.

We are wary when government tries to take our freedom of speech, our privacy and our other rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In a military draft, the state takes our body, our personal freedom and maybe our lives.

Even considering many of the positive aspects of military service (while not ignoring the negatives), all options to the reactivation of the military draft and consequences of a draft should be carefully evaluated.

Because a draft can be one more of many current serious threats to the American people, our liberty and our democracy.

Ellie

DWG
11-17-06, 08:40 AM
The one problem I have had with the all volunteer force is how strict they are on criminal records. My nephew had to have a few tickets "taken care of" before he could get in. As a Marine of the sixties, I said"WTF?". It seems that there are a lot of young people out there whose only hope to break a cycle of self destruction is to get away from the environment that contributes to their problems. A lot of young men (and women) have entered the military in times past and straightened their lives out completely. All it took was a fresh start away from their "peers" on the street (or even prep school). Once they get to a place that offers a chance at self discipline and self respect based on their own actions, they no longer need the crutch of acting in a manner that "proves" to the world that they are "somebody" at the expense of society on the whole. This is not to say the military should suffer malcontents and thugs; they should be tossed right back in the cesspool-there is no hope for them-but the ones that can be saved should be given a chance to prove they are not without some potential. Just Say No To The Draft! Bad Idea!!!

:usmc:

10thzodiac
11-17-06, 09:23 AM
:evilgrin: WHY IN THE FUC~DID YOU JOIN~SMARTAZZ ? :evilgrin: OR DID YOU GET DRAFTED DUMMY ? :D

I liked the uniform and the Marines needed a few good men, plus you never know maybe I'll see John Wayne

Odd, I never saw him, nor did they ever give me my dress blues, next time I'll make sure it is in writing http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif

SF
10thzodiac

P.S. I did see Don & Phil they were in my battalion, 1/11, you do remember, "The Party's Over"
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:dezycNoasZjvHM:http://kukai.free.fr/radiopwhy/1_everly%2520brothers.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://image.listen.com/img/356x237/2/7/2/2/732272_356x237.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rhapsody.com/theeverlybrothers&h=237&w=356&sz=24&hl=en&start=14&tbnid=D_5O9kM7DA8NPM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deverly%2Bbrothers%2B%26svnum%3D10%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)

On February 13, 1962, Don in his Marine dress uniform married movie starlet, Venetia Stevenson, in the chapel at Camp Pendleton, California. Five days later while still honeymooning in New York City, the boys made an appearance on CBS-TV's The Ed Sullivan Show in their dress uniforms. Don and Phil were released from the Marines on May 24, 1962. Three weeks earlier Warner Brothers issued "That's Old Fashion (That's the Way Love Should Be)" which became their second Top Ten single in a row. It was also their last.

http://www.history-of-rock.com/everlymarines.jpg
Their career began to slow down in 1962 after a six-month stint in the Marines. That November while in Britain rehearsing for a tour Don collapsed on stage and Phil had to finish the tour alone. By the time of the onslaught of the British Invasion in 1964 their career had pretty much run their course.

ggyoung
11-17-06, 10:52 AM
DW++++++++++++How right you are. In my plt.336 1964 we had 3 guys delivered to MCRD in hand cuffs. Damn good Marines. Twoo of them stayed in. The other one was killed in Vietnam trying to save s buddy.

outlaw3179
11-17-06, 11:03 AM
[QUOTE=10thzodiac
Odd, I never saw him, nor did they ever give me my dress blues, next time I'll make sure it is in writing http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif



Soldiers dont receive dress blues. Only Marines do.

DWG
11-17-06, 11:09 AM
[quote=10thzodiac http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif



Soldiers dont receive dress blues. Only Marines do. LMAO-ouch!! Good one, but hey, I didn't get a set of blues either-cost 50.00 when I was in-almost a months' pay.
:D

DWG
11-17-06, 11:11 AM
DW++++++++++++How right you are. In my plt.336 1964 we had 3 guys delivered to MCRD in hand cuffs. Damn good Marines. Twoo of them stayed in. The other one was killed in Vietnam trying to save s buddy. Yeah, I was only a step or two ahead of the law when I got to PI. Often wished I had been in jail over the next few weeks.
:D

OLE SARG
11-17-06, 11:57 AM
kerry and smart in the same sentence is something only an idiot would say!!!!!! If the boot fits SOLDIER, wear it!!

SEMPER FI,

DWG
11-18-06, 07:55 AM
kerry and smart in the same sentence is something only an idiot would say!!!!!! If the boot fits SOLDIER, wear it!!

SEMPER FI,
"If you are smart, you realize kerry is a thumb sucking idiot"-what do ya think of that sentence Old Sarg?
:p

Sorry, couldn't resist the challenge. :D

6yrforMar
11-18-06, 08:37 AM
Kerry is a true Elitist,and their are many folks out there who aggree with him.Just listening to radio talk show on finances and the cost of college educ. for your kids,the radio hosts says he would pay extra taxes for the military so former mil. people to attend college after their service,this guy can send his kids to college right after high school.It sounds like the big disconnect that was predicted with a all volunteer military.The people with the higher education are to good to serve in the military.The have nots have the military,our military is too damn small we have more enemies than friends.We are headed to a real ass kickin.

10thzodiac
11-18-06, 11:21 AM
[quote=outlaw3179] LMAO-ouch!! Good one, but hey, I didn't get a set of blues either-cost 50.00 when I was in-almost a months' pay.
:D

I worked in battalion communications 1963-65, I use to shoot the sh*t with this communications officer, a Captain. I remember him telling me allot of Lieutenants were in hock up to their eyeballs buying their uniforms and poor still paying for them.

This Captain was pretty Gung Ho, he use to pray for war and I guess God answered his prayers. He had it so bad, the Regimental Commander, Colonel Crockett 12th Marines told him, that if he came to Regiment anymore, it better be for battalion communications business and not trying to angle to go to Vietnam as an adviser again.

I had the inside what was going on with the officers. One Major was confined to his quarters after working hours and had to keep his door open for others could make sure he wouldn't sneak off to see his wife. Marines were not allowed to have wives in Okinawa, and the other officers were jealous his wife could afford to come and be with him. How one Captain was relived of his command for missing his ship just before he got his gold oak leafs. On how all the Lieutenants that were catching the clap in the ville. How one Captain unknowingly insulted a Army Major about how fat his wife was at a 173rd AB Army Anniversary Artillery ball, who shared the base with us. How our Colonel had it out with the Army 173 AB General about the Airborne calling Marines cowards in their cadence while double timing through our area; the army general accused the Marines of starting it and told our Colonel this is war! The Marines would jump on a paratrooper that wandered into our area after hours and beat the crap out of him, one on one, are you kidding, that would be a fair fight. In Oceanside earlier, I myself was jumped by three fellow drunken Marines that I didn't know or provoke. Although I chased my best friend to the brig for forging another Captains signature, this Captain had me forge his wifes under penalty of forgery.

Sh*t, every month our infantry in Okinawa was having race riots and we the artillery were always on standby to go to their camps to separate the whites from the blacks. Scuttlebutt has it they were finding guys dead all chopped up.

DW George, you are right
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by D W George
And if they said "Marines to the front of the line" you be screaming the loudest "THAT'S ME"!


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

SF
10thzodiac http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

DWG
11-18-06, 12:17 PM
Z-10; You jumped a thread on that last quote-totally screwed me up-that was from Marines are soldiers? I'm easily confused so knock it off!
:confused:

DWG
11-18-06, 12:56 PM
The elite don't serve unless they WANT to, a draft would not change this. A general draft would only force the worst upon the military and weaken a system that has produced the best military we have ever had. Instead, make it a requirement to serve the country in order to participate in the democratic process. If you want to vote or hold public office, you devote two years service to the country. This would not have to be military, but it would have to be something decided by some governing board that would benefit society as a whole. The idea that you have to earn your right to vote rather than be given it when you get your drivers' license or welfare card would weed out the "what's in it for me" crowd somewhat. In other words, if you want to be part of the process that presides over the rights and lives of others you need to demonstrate your willingness to serve. The liberals and slackers will squeal like pigs so I guess we'll have to kill them first. No great loss!

ggyoung
11-18-06, 06:33 PM
Some of the best combat Marines I know were drafted.

DWG
11-18-06, 07:48 PM
Some of the best combat Marines I know were drafted.
Some of the worst disciplinary problems were too. How many gang members were voluntary enlistees?

ggyoung
11-19-06, 03:44 PM
D W==You are right about that also. But in my 8 years in I seen a lot more good that came from these people than I seen bad. It gave these guys a new meaning on life. It gave them a good home and a lot of them stayed in. My last 3 months in Vietnam on my 2ed ture I was NCOIC of B block max security at 3rd Mave Brig we had all branches of the service in the brig. Most were army draftees NOT USMC.

DWG
11-19-06, 04:12 PM
ggyoung=see my post #39 on this thread-I do agree on the fact a lot of kids need a new start-I just do not believe in a draft-more bad comes from it than good-it was bad enough in the 60s, can you imagine what it would be like now with these self endulged little whiners calling the aclu every 15 minutes-hell, we can't even keep pows without a couple of hundred damn lawyers screaming their heads off to give them more rights than our troops have! Let those that want to serve do so, better you have someone watching your back that is there of their own free will.

6yrforMar
11-19-06, 04:33 PM
The voluntary military is working out pretty good.Whats wrong with the draft it is too one-sided in who is inducted and who is sent into combat,and the politicians kids are still not going to be drafted like the Vietnam War,and guess what I heard today,the party of change C.Riengold wants to start the draft again.Is this leading the country in a new direction?Remember during the Vietnam War,students were deferred because they were going to college.The same thing will happen again.

greensideout
11-19-06, 06:16 PM
The voluntary military is working out pretty good.Whats wrong with the draft it is too one-sided in who is inducted and who is sent into combat,and the politicians kids are still not going to be drafted like the Vietnam War,and guess what I heard today,the party of change C.Riengold wants to start the draft again.Is this leading the country in a new direction?Remember during the Vietnam War,students were deferred because they were going to college.The same thing will happen again.


Unless things have changed since my draft duty training (and they may have) the draft will not have the deferments that went on during the Vietnam war. Time will tell when the draft happens and I believe that it will under the guidance of the new house and senate.

DWG
11-19-06, 07:58 PM
Anyone who believes there will be no loopholes, deferments or dodges in any new draft is deluding themselves. There will always be ways for those who have money or pull to avoid serving. In the sixties there was still a tradition of being in the military; almost everyone had a parent who had been in the service, either in WW2 or Korea, and serving was somewhat expected. That is no longer the case, as even knowing someone in the service is a rarity in a lot of instances. In the new era of "entitlement" you will have a huge resistance to forced conscription. If the new congress wishes to stir controversy in an attempt to disrupt the military, a draft is an excellent ploy. Charlie Rangel has called for a draft for years. Why? Certainly not to make sure service is shared by all, it won't be. The military will be innundated with people who resent the intrusion on their lives and will do anything to get out of it. I have never been more impressed with the men and women that make up the military than with those that now serve. A draft will do nothing but besmirch their service and sacrifice and degrade our military to a point where it may become dysfunctional. Who wants to return to the gang and drug activity that occured in the sixties and seventies, most of the people now serving won't, and they are the ones we need to keep.

greensideout
11-19-06, 08:44 PM
Anyone who believes there will be no loopholes, deferments or dodges in any new draft is deluding themselves. There will always be ways for those who have money or pull to avoid serving. In the sixties there was still a tradition of being in the military; almost everyone had a parent who had been in the service, either in WW2 or Korea, and serving was somewhat expected. That is no longer the case, as even knowing someone in the service is a rarity in a lot of instances. In the new era of "entitlement" you will have a huge resistance to forced conscription. If the new congress wishes to stir controversy in an attempt to disrupt the military, a draft is an excellent ploy. Charlie Rangel has called for a draft for years. Why? Certainly not to make sure service is shared by all, it won't be. The military will be innundated with people who resent the intrusion on their lives and will do anything to get out of it. I have never been more impressed with the men and women that make up the military than with those that now serve. A draft will do nothing but besmirch their service and sacrifice and degrade our military to a point where it may become dysfunctional. Who wants to return to the gang and drug activity that occured in the sixties and seventies, most of the people now serving won't, and they are the ones we need to keep.


I continue to believe that a draft would be good for the military AND society in general for America. It worked well in the '50s and '60s based upon my view and experience at the time. I must admit however, that the Marine Corps had no draft at the time that I served but young men were sent to join the Corps as a "better" option then jail.

"Deluding themselves"? Are you are refering to the deferment comments that I made? What I said was based upon fact at the time of training. Your ideas are based upon ??? what? You refer to "gang and drug activity" as something that will invade the military. There is a screening process you know. Not any ya-hoot is going to be accepted by either the draft or voluntary if they don't meet the standards that have been set.

I'm not a fan of Rangels (sp) by a long shot but I am a fan for the draft.

DWG
11-19-06, 09:27 PM
If no "ya-hoots" are going to be accepted I see a lot of Ya-hoots cropping up. Conscription is a last resort for military service. As long as voluntary service works, let it alone. My comments were made upon my observance of history. Deferments are always made for certain groups, for education, marital status, religious beliefs, etc. Always have, always will! The only time conscription worked well was in WW2 when it was an orderly way to process millions of men into service that were WILLING to serve to start with. It degraded slowly through the fifties, along with growing deferments, until it had to be stopped in the seventies to save the military from falling into chaos. A draft will have to lower standards as you will have people who don't want to serve, will resist serving and will carry on activities that are detrimental to the service. In previous posts on this thread I have stated I think the requirements are a little too stringent pertaining to criminal backgrounds, a lot of young guys were saved from a life of crime by the military and became excellent troops and, later, citizens; but a draft is NOT the answer. Ask any professional who served in the late sixties or early seventies what they thought of the quality of draftees.

10thzodiac
11-19-06, 09:38 PM
House Democrat Wants Draft Reinstated

Sunday, November 19, 2006
WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.
In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.
At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.
"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.
"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.
He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.
Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."
Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."
Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.
The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 - now about 16 million - from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.
Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

greensideout
11-19-06, 10:00 PM
If no "ya-hoots" are going to be accepted I see a lot of Ya-hoots cropping up. Conscription is a last resort for military service. As long as voluntary service works, let it alone. My comments were made upon my observance of history. Deferments are always made for certain groups, for education, marital status, religious beliefs, etc. Always have, always will! The only time conscription worked well was in WW2 when it was an orderly way to process millions of men into service that were WILLING to serve to start with. It degraded slowly through the fifties, along with growing deferments, until it had to be stopped in the seventies to save the military from falling into chaos. A draft will have to lower standards as you will have people who don't want to serve, will resist serving and will carry on activities that are detrimental to the service. In previous posts on this thread I have stated I think the requirements are a little too stringent pertaining to criminal backgrounds, a lot of young guys were saved from a life of crime by the military and became excellent troops and, later, citizens; but a draft is NOT the answer. Ask any professional who served in the late sixties or early seventies what they thought of the quality of draftees.


The fact is, I served before you and after you so why would I "ask any professional" if I am one that served at that time? I joined, I trained and I served. May I be the "professional" that you refer to? As I said, the rules for deferment at the time of my training did not include any that you mention.

I have read your posts on those that were "saved from a life of crime" and I agree with you on that for the most part but you say now that "the requirements are a little too stringent pertaining to criminal backgrounds". Thank you. You have made and supported my point that gangs and drugs will not make the cut.

DWG
11-20-06, 06:43 AM
I do not advocate allowing people with a history of drug use/abuse into the service; but having a traffic ticket or two or some slight brush with the law should not exclude you from service. I also claim that you could get deferments for education, marriage and religious beliefs through the (mid-late) sixties, the time of my experience. You would get a 4A, I think, for education, I'm not sure of the other classifications. If you did not run into any drug or gang related problems when and where you served you were very lucky, or unobservant. The Marines had some problems but the Army was rife with it, with places officers or MPs would not go near. Friends who went in the army all came back with horror stories of the gangs. My brother, a lifer in the Air Force, pulled the plug in the seventies because of the low quality of troops he had to work with. The problems existed, whether you were aware of them or not, and will exist again given the lowering of standards a draft will require.

thedrifter
11-20-06, 08:23 AM
Amid Uproar Over War, Rangel Renews Call for Draft
Both Parties Grapple With Iraq As They Await Study Group's Report

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 20, 2006; A04

The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said yesterday that he will push to renew the military draft, as lawmakers in both parties sharpened their criticisms of the situation in Iraq and struggled for consensus and solutions.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a likely presidential contender, leveled one of his harshest assessments yet, saying U.S. troops are "fighting and dying for a failed policy." He renewed his call for more U.S. troops in Iraq and said it is immoral to keep them fighting at the current deployment levels.

And Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), incoming chairman of the Armed Services Committee, repeated yesterday his view that troop withdrawals must begin within four to six months.

The varying proposals underscored the extent to which key policymakers remain at odds two weeks after voters registered deep discontent over the war and restored Democrats to power in Congress.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.

"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

Rangel has drawn modest support for his draft proposal in recent years and it has been unclear whether its prospects might improve in the 110th Congress.

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who will be the Senate majority leader, agrees that the U.S. military is stretched too thin and that "the burden of meeting the nation's security has not been shared equally by all segments of our society," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. But Reid "believes that these problems are best addressed by making needed adjustments in the all-volunteer force," Manley said.

On ABC's "This Week," McCain reiterated his argument that the United States faces a catastrophic setback in Iraq unless it deploys more troops to reduce sectarian violence and stabilize the country. "We have to have additional forces, or we will be playing whack-a-mole," he said.

McCain said in a speech Thursday that it is immoral to keep troops fighting merely to "delay our defeat for a few months or a year." Asked yesterday by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "Isn't it currently immoral to keep Marines and soldiers, other service people, in Iraq?" McCain replied: "Yes, it is." But the war still can be won with renewed effort and resources, he said.

Lawmakers are anxiously awaiting recommendations next month from the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). If the group does not advocate sending more troops to Iraq, McCain said, he would support a troop withdrawal "if, at the point, I think that we have exhausted every option and that we are doomed to failure. I don't know if it'll be at that point [in December] or not."

Although not asked directly about the draft, McCain said, "We've got the best military we've ever had in our all-volunteer force."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) agreed with McCain, saying on "Face the Nation" that more troops should be sent to Iraq and that a military draft is not necessary.

Levin, on CNN's "Late Edition," said the United States must start withdrawing from Iraq to pressure Iraqis to assume control of their nation.

"We must tell the Iraqis that we would begin, starting in four to six months, a phased reduction of our troops," Levin said. Otherwise, he said, "they're going to continue to have the false assumption that we are there in some kind of an open-ended way . . . which takes them off the hook."

On the presidential front, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that he is considering another presidential bid in 2008 despite widespread criticism of what he called "a botched joke" that some received as denigrating troops in Iraq.

And Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) -- who won a contest for House majority leader over a candidate backed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- said he is confident there will not be retaliation against his supporters.

"We're going to talk about that," Hoyer said on "This Week." "But I'm sure that's not going to happen."

In a secret-ballot election by House Democrats on Thursday, Hoyer defeated Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), 149 to 86.

Ellie

DWG
11-20-06, 08:47 AM
I got a brand new Yankee dollar that says "Chatty Charlie" will never get the votes in congress to re-establish the draft. Personally, I hope they do, I can't think of anything that will get the dems kicked to the curb faster, IMAO!

;)

10thzodiac
11-20-06, 08:57 AM
Is there is a draft, it would be presidential political suicide to have anymore Viet-Iraq's !

Those college kids know which way is up !

Bring the troops home...

No more black granite walls for nothing

SF
10thzodiac

6yrforMar
11-20-06, 09:24 AM
The draft back in the sixties took a dispropotionately number of people from the low income,minority and sent them into combat,the USA had a unlimited supply of cannon fodder.Do you really think it would be any different today.A local High school here in Philly lost a disproprtionately high number of it students in Vietnam compared to other schools here and across the country because of the draft in low-income,minority areas.The draft during WW2 worked out well because we were fighting a common enemy centered in two countries,we lived in a smaller world then,the people here in this country were a lot different back then ["The Greatest Generation"],not a selfish bunch of a..holes fighting over some stupid game,with clear heads or maybe if we don`t think about what is going on in this world it will go away!

10thzodiac
11-20-06, 10:00 AM
And every body thought Charles Manson looked a little crazy with that swastika tattooed in the middle of his forehead. Sh*t he didn't want to get drafted http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

DWG
11-20-06, 10:29 AM
And every body thought Charles Manson looked a little crazy with that swastika tattooed in the middle of his forehead. Sh*t he didn't want to get drafted http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

It worked, too. Really, no one thought charlie was crazy-everybody pretty much knew. :banana:

Camper51
11-20-06, 11:48 AM
The Marines had some problems but the Army was rife with it, with places officers or MPs would not go near. Friends who went in the army all came back with horror stories of the gangs. My brother, a lifer in the Air Force, pulled the plug in the seventies because of the low quality of troops he had to work with. The problems existed, whether you were aware of them or not, and will exist again given the lowering of standards a draft will require.

And why weren't we rife with problems? WE HAD MORE DISCIPLINE, not necessarily enough but more than the army did.

If the officers and MP's would not go in after the gangs they should have been shot! IT'S THEIR F*CKIN JOB to uphold law and order!

Lowering of enlistment standards does not mean a lowering of standards within the Corps. UPHOLD the standards we have and kick out the malcontents who won't do it our way.

What the F*ck is wrong with people. THey don't want to offend some poor bastard who won't conform? Screw him, he can follow rules the way everyone else does or he can get his butt kicked for not doing so! All this "politically correct" crap just causes problems. DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM from the get go and you nip it in the bud. Let it fester and it will infect the whole body...

sgtrock1970
11-20-06, 01:28 PM
a DEFINATION from "the Warrior Culture of the United States Marines"
Political Correctness Counsillor:(1) a civilian advisor, who is depriving a village, somewhere, of it's idiot. (2) A person , who would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. (3) An utter ignoramus. (4) A wimp, a hand wringing sniveling weakling.
The above are which guide us.

FistFu68
11-20-06, 02:13 PM
:evilgrin: FANTASTIC~I CAN FINALLY USE MY SMALL BUSINESS LOAN.OPEN A TATOO~PARLOR IN SAN~FRANCISCO!MY SPECIALITY DOING FOREHEAD'S,THE ONLY TATOO AVAILABLE WILL BE(QUEER)~OR (666)!!! SO ALL YOU, YOUNG SATANIC~QUEER'S HURRY NOW!!! :D

10thzodiac
11-20-06, 02:21 PM
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/bushhorns.jpg

6yrforMar
11-20-06, 11:42 PM
If the war in Iraq is not handled properly and our politicians give the world the impression that we are defeated in Iraq,when we finally leave.We will need a draft.With the likes of Iran [who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth] and the world without a USA.Throw in N.Korea,Syria all at one time it will be a world war like 65 years ago,but right now we do not need a draft.The all volunteer military is doing a great job.Rangels argument about the President would not have invaded Iraq if there was a draft is a real crock of sh.t,the draft did not prevent the Vietnam war!

thedrifter
11-21-06, 07:49 AM
Charlie Rangel’s Draft Obsession <br />
November 21, 2006 <br />
by Jim Kouri, CPP <br />
<br />
Some Democrat Party lawmakers claim the volunteer military may become dangerously stretched thin by events occuring in Iran,...

thedrifter
11-21-06, 08:32 AM
College students oppose military draft, but see little chance for its passage

By: MARTHA IRVINE - Associated Press

CHICAGO -- Many college students see the latest flirtation with a military draft more as political game-playing than a serious threat.

They welcome a discussion on military issues and the war in Iraq but, regardless of their political leanings, view a draft as outdated and unrealistic.

Their comments came Monday as U.S. Rep Charles Rangel -- a New York Democrat who's also the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee -- says he will introduce legislation next year that would reinstate the draft and require young Americans to register after turning 18. Rangel sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

Nora Vail, a junior at DePaul University in Chicago, sees some merit in having a discussion about military service.

It's not "the Bush twins going off to war," she says. "It's going to be the poor kids growing up in the South or the inner city who go off to war."

But she doesn't think reinstating the draft is the answer -- and calls it a "terrible" idea.

"The majority of people who'd be drafted would oppose the war," Vail says, referring to Iraq.

"It would just be Vietnam all over again. It would be people forced to serve in a war that they didn't want to be at," says Vail, a Democrat majoring in political science.

Students with other political affiliations share her opposition to the draft, though sometimes for different reasons.

"What would I do if I was drafted? I think I probably wouldn't be the best of soldier. I'm not sure other soldiers would want to depend on me," says Steven Haag, a 21-year-old senior at Emory University in Atlanta, who's majoring in classics and history. The editor of the Emory Political Review, he identifies himself as a Republican.

In reality, he says most students see little chance of a draft measure actually passing.

"The only people who are talking about it are the political pundits and a couple kids around campus," he says.

Jamie McKown, a professor of government and policy at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, agrees that many young people don't see the draft as a real possibility -- but if it were, he says, it would be an "explosive issue."

"I think they associate the draft as almost a historical thing -- as something that occurred when we were involved in a bad war," he says, referring to Vietnam. At the very least, he thinks Rangel's proposal will spark debate -- not just among students, but also parents.

"Maybe we should talk about how likely we are to go to war if it's your children and not somebody else's children," McKown says. "But I can't see that anyone thinking about (running in) the 2008 campaign would want to touch it with a 10-foot pole."

Already, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that restoring the draft will not be part of that agenda when Democrats take over the House in January.

That said, the war in Iraq remains a hot-button issues for young voters, along with the economy and the cost of higher education.

Ben Unger, field director for a major nonpartisan get-out-the-vote effort, found that time and again as he registered young voters in California, Arizona, Iowa and Oregon for this month's midterm election. In the end, he says those issues motivated young people to show up at the polls in impressive numbers, as they did in the 2004 election.

The issue of concern when it came to Iraq was not, however, necessarily a draft.

"They mostly see it as something that affects their lives but is half a world away," says Unger, field director for the New Voters Project.

More often, young people told him they were concerned about the loss of life -- both Americans and Iraqis -- and the lack of progress in the war. "They don't have any better idea how we're going to get out of it -- I think they feel relatively hopeless," Unger says.

Kyle Massenburg, a senior at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, agrees that a disproportionate number of low-income and minority students enter the military. He saw many of his high school peers do so because they wanted to pay for school or needed a job.

"It's a tough dilemma," says Massenburg, who's 21 and a corporate communications major.

But he and others say they'd be more motivated to support a draft if they saw a better reason for fighting.

"We are not at war with a tangible enemy," he says. "Even though I consider myself a conservative, I do not believe that people should be forced to serve in the military for an unstable cause."

On the Net:

New Voters Project: www.newvotersproject.org/

Ellie

ggyoung
11-22-06, 11:45 AM
During the Vietnam war there were lots of young men who "volinterd for the draft" knowing they would go to Vietnam but only had to serve 2 years. So much of the bad stuff people have heard about Vietnam simpley is not true. If one recerchs that war they would be happly surprised at what they find. Like the army had a real problem with drugs in the bush. As a general rule the Marines did not have much of a problem. The list go on and on.