Mandatory Draft Bill

[mmichaelson]

Ha!

[Nicole Marie]

Haggis, my dad was a recruiter for years. I've seen the memos and books from classes he attended that taught who and how to target. You don't target the kid driving the BMW, you go after the kid that needs money and drives the Pinto. You target the lower class sections of town, the poorer high schools, the minority neighborhoods. They need money for college and a way out. You'll never meet your recruiting levels if you try to target the rich kids, they have money for college, but a poor minority kid...

[haggis]

Powell is referring to the draft, your comment seemed to imply that the military is made up of the poor and minorities now.

Rangel is just rabble rousing and virtually none of the numbers he referred to are acurate.

Your second reference has nothing to do with the active duty military, it's referring to the upper levels of civil service.

According to the ”Population Representation in the Military Services 2002”

” In FY 2002, African Americans were equitably represented in the military overall. In the enlisted force, African Americans were slightly overrepresented among NPS active duty accessions (16 percent) relative to the 18-24 year-old civilian population (14 percent). Hispanics, on the other hand, continued to be underrepresented, with 11 percent among NPS accessions compared with nearly 16 percent for comparable civilians. FY 2002 representation of “Other” minority enlisted accessions (Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders) stood at approximately 6 percent, slightly more than in the civilian population (5 percent). Though there was a significant decrease in African American enlistment during FY 2002 African Americans are still overrepresented when compared to their civilian cohorts. Higher retention rates among African Americans continue to boost their representation among Active Components enlisted members – 22 percent in contrast to the 13 percent of African Americans among 18-44 year-old civilians in the workforce. With 10 percent of active duty enlisted members counted as Hispanic, this ethnic minority remained underrepresented relative to the comparable civilian population (14 percent).”

Steve Sailer a UPI journalist reported last year:

"Are soldiers the products of particularly poor families? According to 1999 Defense Department statistics, the enlisted ranks come from neither the top nor the bottom of society, but from working and middle class backgrounds. Very few enlistees appear to be the scions of the wealthy. (Some officers are from rich families, however; but a larger proportion of officers are the sons and daughters of officers.)

White enlistees tend to come from households somewhat lower in income than the general white population: $33,500 per year versus $44,400 for the average white, according to 1999 Defense Department statistics. Strikingly, black enlistees come from households above the black national average: $32,000 vs. $27,900.”

[RC]

Haggis,
I am actually dumbfounded that you didn't understand what I said and that you think your source contradicted what I said.

Re-read my post. It was two fold.
Your comments support both points.

I guess I don't get what you think you got from what I thought I was saying.

[RC]

Powell again: "I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that war. The policies — determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live — were an anti-democratic disgrace. I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well placed and so many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Yes, this is refering to the draft but in reference to my earlier post - who gets stuck on th firing line when the bullets start flying.

[RC]

Haggis, my dad was a recruiter for years. I've seen the memos and books from classes he attended that taught who and how to target. You don't target the kid driving the BMW, you go after the kid that needs money and drives the Pinto. You target the lower class sections of town, the poorer high schools, the minority neighborhoods. They need money for college and a way out. You'll never meet your recruiting levels if you try to target the rich kids, they have money for college, but a poor minority kid...

Nicole,
You can't just make a claim! Go find those memos, scan them and then paste them.
And it better have the seal of the branch of service it came from and the name rank and serial number of whomever wrote it.

Haggis- just pulling your chain
Try not to discount everything I say just because I'm not voting for Bush.
Maybe tomorrow I'll get a new name on the board, pretend to be a Bush supporter, post the same thing and see what reaction I get. :p

[RC]

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:...4) Such other grounds as the President may establish

b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--...2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--... (2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

See what I mean about it never being unbiased and fair? How is this supposed to be better?

What a load of ... garbage. IMHO

[Shapley]

RC,

RE:Nicole,
You can't just make a claim! Go find those memos, scan them and then paste them.
And it better have the seal of the branch of service it came from and the name rank and serial number of whomever wrote it.

Call Dan Rather, I'm sure he can get those memos for you!

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hey Shap, you forgot the grinning smilies again!

[Nicole Marie]

RC it's not a claim. It's no suprise. Job recruiters do the same thing in private companies too. In fact WetFleet (an international recruiting company) released info on the military, notifing private companies to hire military recruits b/c they will help private companies meet their needs in a variety of areas. Including... "minorities accounted for nearly 4 out of every 10 new recruits into all military branches (38 percent). That compares to the entire U.S. minority population of 27 percent—a difference of 11 percent!" http://www.wetfeet.com/employer/articles/article.asp?aid=532&atype=source

Don't believe me? Fine, really tired of these "mines better then yours" posts anyway.

[Shapley]

OT,

You're right!

[Nicole Marie]

Now let me define that last point I made before folks get thier panties in a knot. "mines better then yours" comment

Call it election year mojo... but the BBB has been filled with posts that are at times entertaining but are also the equivalent of banging your head into a brick wall. No one is going to change anyone’s mind. So can we all chill out on these posts for awhile and stop with the over all tone. Remember folks it's the INTERNET, VIRTUAL REALITY... It's NOT REAL! You will never meet these people in real life (except OT, Piq and Altoid). If this is how you are passing time....

[Shapley]

Nicole,

I found this in the article you posted:

The military does a lot of training in just about everything. The current military is the most highly educated in history. More than 98 percent of all service members are high school graduates and over 46 percent have graduated or attended college.

My experience in the military in the '80s was the military was "culling out" the undesirables. Todays military is very technical oriented, and needs trainable recruits to learn to operate the gear they will use. These people, purely and simply, are not found at the lower spectrum. THe military accepts very few high-school dropouts, and assists the few they do accept to complete the curriculum. They do not accept drug-users, which are prevalent in lower-class neighborhoods. The zero-tolerance policy on drugs is no farce. Drug testing is (or was) performed on a continuing basis throughout enlistment. Recruiters routinely set up booths at job fairs, colleges, and middle- and upper-class high schools, as well as the lower-class schools.

I'm afraid your image of the military is about thirty years old. Richard Nixon ended the draft, and Ronald Reagan made the military respectable as a profession. In vietnam the desire may have been to fill the ranks with "warm bodies", but the military of today is looking for brains, and finding them.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Shapely, I'm not even 30 so no idea where you got what you think my image of the military is. I'm just saying there are unfair practices in recruiting of the military taking place. It happens on all levels, private and government. It's of no suprise. The military is not a golden child and perfect. There are faults that should be addressed.

Please note my last post. This is getting old. I'd love to get rid of the Beethoven Barracks.

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
Shapely, I'm not even 30 ...

Oh YRH, stop bragging!

[RC]

Gee Nicole... I thought we were buds.

Were you joking?

I have to say that I don't consider this a virtual reality. I'm not communicating with Sims (my daughter's a junky), I'm communicating with real people.

Back in the old days of Plato and Socrates, people sat around and discussed these kind of things in person. Maybe I'm just getting old but I enjoy it.

It doesn't matter to me if Haggis and I disagree so much as the value of the debate itself. It's frustrating only when there is nothing left to debate and we continue debating. Yep, that happens and yes, I'm guilty.

Haggis may post four links to support his argument and I love practicing analytical reading so I read every link. He and I have had a lifetime of different experiences and I get a kick out of seeing what makes him tick.

I'm using Haggis because I can't think of a more obvious antithesis to my own posts. Thanks Haggis.

Sometimes I even like to play devils advocate to test my own beliefs and theories so I'll throw out an opinion I've only half formed or pose a question that seems ludicrous.

I take it personally in a different way I guess. Peoples reactions are part of them, not part of me but they are most definately real and deserving of respect.

So now that you've seen inside my head, maybe you will feel less anxious about my posts.

[haggis]

RC,
As my grandfather used to say, anything can serve as an example, even if it's an example of what you want to avoid.

Glad to know you want to know what makes me tick.

Simple answer, if I was a river I'd be a mile wide and an inch deep; no hidden depths here, what you see is what you get.

[shostakovich]

Hi folks. I think most of us, who remember the draft, are thinking along similar lines for HR 163. It said military service OR civilian service. As far as I read into it ("I hate long posts"), there are no specifics except for 18-26.

It's entirely possible that the word "draft" is being used to scare 18-26-year-olds. It's also possible that congressmen are poo-pooing the bill now because it will help their re-election.

Now for a post-election reality check.
There WILL be a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may spread, especially if Jerk-Who-Smirks is re-elected. There WILL be more troops needed. There WILL be a draft (probably in 2005).
Shos

PS: Bush's "principle of pre-emption" is alone more dangerous to world peace than the current wars themselves. The US has lots of WMD, fewer allies and more enemies than a few years ago, wages war on dubious grounds (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq), and can be seen as a threat to many nations. We may be the target of "pre-emption" within the lifetimes of some of the younger board members. The legacy of GWB: deep division within the country, a mounting national deficit, and growing enmity throughout the world.
And he only needed 4 years to do it. God forbid "four more years".

<small>[ 09-24-2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Serenity]

Here is an article written in July about the need to be brave and say "no" to military conscription and war. By all means, serve if you believe in serving but stand up and say no if you believe that is the right thing to do. The government serves us, not the other way around.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/printer_1506.shtml

<small>[ 09-25-2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Serenity ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Serenity:
Here is an article written in July about the need to be brave and say "no" to military conscription and war.

The guys at the end of that article voluntarily joined the military, swore the oath, took the money. Then decided that they wouldn't go fight in specific wars - not war in general, mind you, individual specific wars. Because they had no personal beef with the opponents in that specific war.

Earlier in the article, some conscientious objectors were cited; these people refused to join the military because they were opposed to the killing of humans in war. In general, no specific circumstances, citing religious or ethical conviction. No problem. That's what CO status is for, it should be upheld, and alternate service should be allowed to fulfill the draft obligation (as it existed then).

But individual soldiers are not allowed to decide whether they'd like to fight in a specific war. The army is not a debating society, nor is it a situational ethics seminar. Those are civilian organizations, and are populated by philosophers, lawyers, politicians, and social scientists.

At present, we have an all-volunteer military. If you object to fighting, don't volunteer.