Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/21/2003 3:17:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

When this issue came up a while back, Rangel was pitching it from a racism perspective, that minorities have a disproportionate burden in wars. My understanding was that the military objected to reestablishment of the draft on the grounds that war has changed and that hoards of cannon fodder were no longer needed or even useful, that they prefer fewer troops and prefer volunteers.

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/21/2003 3:52:38 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

If you were running a company as a CEO, would you enjoy having an employee population with a heavy proportion of those who did not want to be there? Including many that you might not like to have as well? Or one in which all of them had voluntarily chosen to work for you, and which you had voluntarily accepted? Which organization do you think would be more successful in achieving your company's goals?

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/21/2003 4:13:22 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

You don't turn a kid into a good American by making him/her into a slave. Those not needed in the military would perform civilian service. Maybe they could pick the cotton.

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/21/2003 4:55:40 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

I would feel neither safe nor secure giving the task of protecting our freedom to people who aren't interested in the job. I'd rather do it myself and feel even better that we currently have professionals of the highest calibre in that role. Although the current force size is limited so that we can't be everywhere — we don't need to be everywhere. How much is enough? Aside from that, I could see some going so far as to make high school "the best 10 years of their lives" or even dropping out entirely just to stay out of the draft. This is not a nation-improvement solution: "All men and women ages 18 to 26 would be eligible for induction once they have completed high school. Those not needed in the military would perform civilian service."

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/21/2003 8:45:30 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Charlie Rangel and I have found common agreement. I have to admit that I like Charlie. He is smart and tough. he got a Purple Heart and Bronze Star in Korea, served from 48 to 52. I don't know, but it sounds like he went in from Japan with the old "duece four." I am totally opposed to just about everything he is for politically, of course. Including the draft. I posted it because I knew it would get to you. :>)

To: unclewest who wrote (20820)	12/22/2003 1:07:33 AM
From: MSI	Respond to of 793717

Exactly right. Common national service provides a common framework for being "American", besides the other benefits of discipline and the extent of our mutual responsibilities. Odd how this issue seems to cut across ideological bounds. Rumsfeld accused Rangel of just trying to stir up trouble but I think he's serious, and I'm glad he hasn't dropped it. The last thing we need if we are in any danger of totalitarian rule is a completely mercenary military, which is where Rumsfeld is headed. To be blunt, foreigners and mercenaries can be more easily counted on to shoot other Americans than conscripted civilians.