Most in poll worry draft will be back

[LynnsABCs]

[turbo6bar]

I believe all young men and women should be required to serve for 2 years. It sounds like 32% of those polled are dumba$$es. Actively avoiding military service is not a good idea, and unpatriotic, in my opinion...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm glad I'm 33 and thus too old to be drafted. Were I not, you bet your a$$ I'd be avoiding it. I don't give a rat's a$$ whether someone finds that unpatriotic or not - I'm not about to end up dead or a parapelegic so that dubya's cronies can buy bigger yachts and more legions of soccer moms can toodle around in 7,000 pound SUVs. This war is flat-out stupid and I'll never support it. I certainly wouldn't support it with my mortal life and I'd think nothing less of anyone else that didn't either!

This isn't a war about America or national security or defending our homeland - it's about money and oil and ensuring that the rich stay richer than you and that the powerful stay more powerful than you. S-T-U-P-I-D. If you're in such a hurry to prove your patriotism or manhood or whatever by throwing away your life in support of such idiocy, I'll lend you my 9mm.

FWIW, I DID look at enlisting right after 9/11, but was too old by a few months. I'm glad I didn't in wake of the absolutely intellectually vacuous course this country's foreign policy has been on since. I'd certainly fight a war against Al Qaeda and other bona-fide "terrorists" but I'm sure as hell not going to fight one against Iraqi civilians or a sovereign regime (undesirable though it may be) that does nothing wrong other than DARING to not hand over their oil to BushCo. Oh the horror!

[jm951]

So POP, if the draft were put back in if Kerry is elected, would that change your mind or would you just continue to shirk any form of serving the country that guarantees your right to be a liberal?

[mikester]

Isn't 6 in 10 60%?

Originally posted by jm951
So POP, if the draft were put back in if Kerry is elected, would that change your mind or would you just continue to shirk any form of serving the country that guarantees your right to be a liberal?

Doesn't he sever his country by being an active voting citizen and paying his taxes?

[mikester]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I'm glad I'm 33 and thus too old to be drafted. Were I not, you bet your a$$ I'd be avoiding it. I don't give a rat's a$$ whether someone finds that unpatriotic or not - I'm not about to end up dead or a parapelegic so that dubya's cronies can buy bigger yachts and more legions of soccer moms can toodle around in 7,000 pound SUVs. This war is flat-out stupid and I'll never support it. I certainly wouldn't support it with my mortal life and I'd think nothing less of anyone else that didn't either!

This isn't a war about America or national security or defending our homeland - it's about money and oil and ensuring that the rich stay richer than you and that the powerful stay more powerful than you. S-T-U-P-I-D. If you're in such a hurry to prove your patriotism or manhood or whatever by throwing away your life in support of such idiocy, I'll lend you my 9mm.

FWIW, I DID look at enlisting right after 9/11, but was too old by a few months. I'm glad I didn't in wake of the absolutely intellectually vacuous course this country's foreign policy has been on since. I'd certainly fight a war against Al Qaeda and other bona-fide "terrorists" but I'm sure as hell not going to fight one against Iraqi civilians or a sovereign regime (undesirable though it may be) that does nothing wrong other than DARING to not hand over their oil to BushCo. Oh the horror!

This is why we have a volunteer defense force. When the going gets tough and the cause is just more often than not our men and women show up to serve. On the other hand - if they don't agree to the cause - should they be forced to fight? This isn't a question of who should serve but who should be forced to serve.

I remember reading in WWII that even Quakers enlisted and though they still wouldn't fight many made excellent medics and other non combat personnel.

[gaijinda]

National Service of some sort is not necessarily a bad idea, but I see this a "push poll" fishing for a response. A re-elected Bush = more war, is standard leftist theory.
Everything I have read says that the Pentagon likes a volunteer military, as those young people actually want to be there (or they joined anyway). And number two, what about the huge illegal immigrant issue? No fair minded baby boomer couple is going to ship off young Johnny, when a couple of million are not even registered..

[widebody911]

The problem with re-instating the draft is it gives the NeoCons a bigger army with which to play geopolitics. Unless Kerry takes everyone in the current regime out back and puts bullets in their heads (ah, the good old days, eh?), there will still be a NeoCon influence.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Nope. I wouldn't support this war regardless of who's in charge. It's bogus. The reasons for being there are blatant lies, and the blood of American men and women has been spilt over it. Families have been torn apart, lives destroyed, etc. Why?

Again, I'm not beyond fighting for things if they're worth it - nothing in this war has been worth the price. Not by a longshot.

Don't like my position? I really don't give a damn. That's my right as a "patriotic" American too.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by gaijinda
National Service of some sort is not necessarily a bad idea, but I see this a "push poll" fishing for a response. A re-elected Bush = more war, is standard leftist theory.

Please provide evidence to the contrary.

And number two, what about the huge illegal immigrant issue?

Or legal immigrant issue, for that matter. For example, where I work, we have tons of H1-B's. It's an easy bet that if natives get called up, they would back fill them with more H1-B's. How lovely is that - send the Americans off to war, and Indians get their jobs.

[jm951]

Mikester- not really, but the number of folks who outright reject serving, and not for a religous reason, is something that should be addressed. Why? Would whatever party in charge in Washington make a difference? From my POV, there are quite a few late 20's early 30's people who don't have any sense of service to the country or support for national policy. They're more interested in making a buck, getting drunk or high, and living large. They're usually liberals in a political sense who assert that anyone who does serve is of lower intelligence and duped by "the administration". I saw lots of that back in the Vietnam era and maybe these guys are the modern Abby Hoffmans. Either way, those who volunteer for service are generally not stupid, nor are they motivated by the same things that the libs are. There is a reason many military are conservatives and I think it comes down to a personal world paradigm difference. Both of my sons serve, neither is "stupid" nor were they duped into serving. They both voluteered because of a love of the country and to give something back.

[gaijinda]

Originally posted by widebody911

The evidence is all around you. Getting rid of Bush is the #1 priority of many. Rational thought and reasoned debate is not required.

Non-Citizens, those here legally or not, would be eligible. Those that are illegally would be harder to find. Imagine all those people who could not get their grass cut or house cleaned on the cheap?? There would be war indeed!!!!

[mikester]

Originally posted by jm951
Mikester- not really, but the number of folks who outright reject serving, and not for a religous reason, is something that should be addressed. Why? Would whatever party in charge in Washington make a difference? From my POV, there are quite a few late 20's early 30's people who don't have any sense of service to the country or support for national policy. They're more interested in making a buck, getting drunk or high, and living large. They're usually liberals in a political sense who assert that anyone who does serve is of lower intelligence and duped by "the administration". I saw lots of that back in the Vietnam era and maybe these guys are the modern Abby Hoffmans. Either way, those who volunteer for service are generally not stupid, nor are they motivated by the same things that the libs are. There is a reason many military are conservatives and I think it comes down to a personal world paradigm difference. Both of my sons serve, neither is "stupid" nor were they duped into serving. They both voluteered because of a love of the country and to give something back.

Alright, I'll give you that - there are a lot of liberal *********s who just won't serve. Hell, I might be one of them but I would like to think I'm not - now I'm too old and when I was younger I had plenty of reasons not too. One good one which I doubt now is that I was turned away when my recruiter found out about my diagnosed heart murmur. Fact is I wasn't needed then - it wasn't an issue and now it's too late. I'm an Air Force brat and in the 20 years my dad spent in that service I never stopped noticing when guys didn't come home and families left because of it.

I respect your opinion as well as the service of you and your sons.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by mikester
there are a lot of liberal *********s who just won't serve.

And here's your a-list *********s:

Vice President Cheney - Five deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service").

Attorney General John Ashcroft - did not serve; sought deferment to teach business education at SW Missouri State University.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham - Did not serve, sought deferment to study law at Harvard.

Elliot Abrams, Senior Director for Democracy, human rights and international operations. State Department. (Pardoned by Bush Sn for Contragate crimes). Avoided the draft, did not serve.

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary for Defence. Avoided the draft and did not serve (a full on neocon religopolitical ideologue who answers directly to Ricard Perle 'Mr evil incorporated' see below).

Richard Perle, Chairman of Defence Policy Board (Liason with the Pentagon). Avoided the draft, did not serve (much of the current bloodshed in the Middle East a direct result of his meddling). His nickname in political circles for the last 30 years is the 'Prince of Darkness'.

Dan Quayle, Frm Vice President avoided Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity (at least he showed up for his duty, unlike Dubya).

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP:

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert R-IL, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey R-TX, avoided the draft, did not serve.

House Majority Leader Tom Delay R-TX, avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."

House Majority Whip Roy Blount R-MO, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist R-IL, did not serve. Failed Medical.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott R-MS, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich R-GA, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senator Phil Gramm R-TX, avoided the draft, did not serve, four student deferments.

Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, U.S. Army Reserves, 1973-1986.

Senator Don Nickles, R-OK, Avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senator Richard Shelby R-AL, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senator Tim Hutchison, R-AR, avoided the draft,did not serve.

Rep. Christopher Cox, R-CA, fifth-ranking Republican in Congress - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, did not serve, had a "bad knee". (Wrestling coach)

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, avioded the draft, did not serve.

Frm. Rep. JC Watts R-OK, avoided the draft, did not serve.

Frm. Rep. Jack Kemp, R-CA did not serve (was fit enough for pro football, but "failed" the physical?)

[widebody911]

Originally posted by gaijinda
The evidence is all around you.

No, you're supposed to tell me how 4 more years of Bush equates to less war, since the 'leftist theory' is that 4 more years of Bush = more war.

Show your work.

[gaijinda]

Good Sir, the evidence is all around you regarding those that hate Bush.

Otherwise, less war is not guaranteed. Not one bit. We would all hope there is less war, many of us will pray. Time will tell.

[jm951]

Mikester- Perhaps I have a different perspective on service since the vast majority of the males in my family have served at least one hitch and some were lifers. We've been in about every fracas this country has been in, including the Revolution. The universal opinion from those who are still around for comment is that service, while hard, sometimes dangerous, and not a whole lot of fun, made them better appreciate what they had when they got out. I attempted to enlist back in 1980 and was rejected for medical reasons. Even so, I look at kids from my daughter's school and I see many like I described earlier and the vast majority of them have decidely liberal leanings. So from my POV, it looks (generally speaking) like the only ones willing to volunteer, even if for only one hitch, are the kids who come from the conservative backgrounds.

[mikester]

I guess at I'm just not exposed to these liberal leaning folk you speak of out here in Sunny CA. The liberals I know out here are around my age and very patriotic but not uncontrollably so that they take everything the President or one of his men says as the total truth. So; I'm just going to have to say that there is truth to what we both see and I don't disagree with you.

I'll tell you the truth - I'm pretty bitter about being turned away by that recruiter so many years ago. That's been a hard one to get over.

[jm951]

When I got turned down, the recruiter was telling me about his bad back, bad knees, and arthritis, but he was on his last year. In 1980, they were still doing RIF and you about had to be a perfect physical specimen to get taken. The military was trying to slim down the last of the Vietnam era personnel, so they just weren't "hiring". Even so, I still think the majority of those who do volunteer have a quality to them that is sadly lacking in the general populace.

[Moneyguy1]

War, such as a war where there is actual danger to the Country (WWII stands out as a sterling example) is sometimes necessary. Minor skirmishes are "vanity wars" often used by leaders to settle old scores. This is what we are finding more and more. The "little guy" getting killed and maimed just so someone can "get even", and the leaders are far away from the action, safe and secure. That is flat out wrong.

Whereas I served and was lucky enough to be between fracases I believe in some kind of public service, whether it be military, foreign humanitarian or domestic. Folks might even get to understand not only their own country but maybe the world a bit better and be less prone to turn everything into absolutes and simplistic solutions. Some posters here could profit by such an experience.

Comment about "conservatives" and "liberals" and who make the best military? I propose that political affiliation means little when you are getting fired at.