/dev/null Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1900376_pf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1900376_pf.html 842433[/snapback] And the 'College Republicans For Bush' hate him for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 And he's right. Why should the kids of the middle and lower class go to fight Bush's war? If everyone benefits from our military, then everyone should serve. Rangel's been trying to do this for years and his rationale is absolutely correct: perhaps if everyone's fair game for military service, people won't be in such a rush to start wars. I happened to meet a couple from Alaska recently...no question the redness of THAT state. They are successful business owners and were sharing their support for the big GOP heroes in Congress. Therefore I was floored when the wife said that her sons were approaching military age and she was either going to make sure they got into college, or Canada. I asked her if she thought it was fair that only kids who couldn't do college (or Canada) fought wars and she said "no" but these were HER kids...and then after a moment she said "it's a stupid war and we never should have started it." Rangel's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1900376_pf.html 842433[/snapback] As the article mentioned, Charlie's been pushing for this for several years. It seems the thinking behind it being, if people can get drafted into the armed services against their will (rather than the all volunteer military we currently have), there would be greater protest against US military involvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Yeah, let's do that. Then our military will be completely incompetent in all phases because no one wants to do the actual right thing. Here's an idea: Cut the damn budget and bring the troops home from all the other continents instead and park them right here, along the southern and nothern borders. Let's go back to defending the good ol' USofA and let everyone else worry about the sh-- in their backyard. Go, go CONSTITUTION. Special thanks to Charlie Rangel, though. Gotta love a guy who'll give the idiots something to chew on so they continue to miss the big picture. I do the same things with my dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 And he's right. Why should the kids of the middle and lower class go to fight Bush's war? If everyone benefits from our military, then everyone should serve. Rangel's been trying to do this for years and his rationale is absolutely correct: perhaps if everyone's fair game for military service, people won't be in such a rush to start wars. I happened to meet a couple from Alaska recently...no question the redness of THAT state. They are successful business owners and were sharing their support for the big GOP heroes in Congress. Therefore I was floored when the wife said that her sons were approaching military age and she was either going to make sure they got into college, or Canada. I asked her if she thought it was fair that only kids who couldn't do college (or Canada) fought wars and she said "no" but these were HER kids...and then after a moment she said "it's a stupid war and we never should have started it." Rangel's right. 842574[/snapback] You mean two parents want their kids to go to college and opt out of a....VOLUNTARY....military? How dare them. The DUMBEST libitard talking point is "if you support the war you MUST give your children up for the fight." If thats the case Deb, then I want ALL liberal and Democrat women to get at least one abortion. After all...how DARE you support something you either havent gone through or are willing to go through, yourself? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Here's an idea: Cut the damn budget and bring the troops home from all the other continents instead and park them right here, along the southern and nothern borders. Let's go back to defending the good ol' USofA and let everyone else worry about the sh-- in their backyard. Go, go CONSTITUTION. 842580[/snapback] Is that why the author of the Constitution sent the US Navy to the Mediterranean to protect US commercial interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Is that why the author of the Constitution sent the US Navy to the Mediterranean to protect US commercial interests? 843406[/snapback] I prefer George Washington's perspective on long term military alliances, which is what I was actually referring to. There are certainly times to use force. The seizing of flagged vessels fits that. I fail to see how the two correlate, unless we're going to continue the lame "forward positioning" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Is that why the author of the Constitution sent the US Navy to the Mediterranean to protect US commercial interests? 843406[/snapback] This is an awesome post because: 1. How many people on this board actually know who the author of the Constitution was? 2. How many people know the US Navy was active in the Mediterranean early in our country's history? 3. How many people know why they were there and who they were fighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 And he's right. Why should the kids of the middle and lower class go to fight Bush's war? If everyone benefits from our military, then everyone should serve. 842574[/snapback] Everyone does. Link * Myth 1: Military recruits are less educated and have fewer work alternatives than other young Americans. * Myth 2: The military tends to attract people with lower aptitudes. * Myth 3: The military attracts a disproportionate number of poor or underprivileged youth. * Myth 4: A disproportionate number of recruits come from urban areas. * Myth 5: The military isn't geographically representative of America. Follow the link for real live actual facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 This is an awesome post because: 1. How many people on this board actually know who the author of the Constitution was? 2. How many people know the US Navy was active in the Mediterranean early in our country's history? 3. How many people know why they were there and who they were fighting? 843425[/snapback] Author of the Constitution? Did you guys take high school history? There was no one author. What ignorance! And anyway, Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was created Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Author of the Constitution? Did you guys take high school history? There was no one author. What ignorance! And anyway, Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was created 843447[/snapback] Someone *is* recognized as the primary author of the Constitution and it's not Jefferson (who was the primary author of the Declaration). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 I prefer George Washington's perspective on long term military alliances, which is what I was actually referring to. There are certainly times to use force. The seizing of flagged vessels fits that. I fail to see how the two correlate, unless we're going to continue the lame "forward positioning" argument. 843417[/snapback] Of course Washington didn't like to enter into long term alliances, because after getting the Hurons(?) help in evicting the French from Duquesne, all bets were off in pushing the same Indians further west by the new American republic. The two correlate in that US interests don't (and have never) stopped at the Atlantic Ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Someone *is* recognized as the primary author of the Constitution and it's not Jefferson (who was the primary author of the Declaration). 843468[/snapback] Yeah, ok so it's the other Virginia college guy. The main point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Yeah, ok so it's the other Virginia college guy. The main point still stands. 843475[/snapback] You were right the first time anyway. Madison was Jefferson's Secretary of State and the Barbary Wars were won when he was President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Although I think there is really little support for what Rangle suggests - which is a draft to get bodies into uniform as an impediment to foreign adventurism, haven't there always been those in the Pentagon that have been advocates of a draft for specialized skills rather than warm bodies. Drafting nurses, linguists, computer scientists, etc. Is it not more likely that a draft would be the opposite of the one used for Vietnam? Drafting those with specialized skills among the college educated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Is it not more likely that a draft would be the opposite of the one used for Vietnam? Drafting those with specialized skills among the college educated? 843513[/snapback] And what do you think will happen to college enrollment in those fields if there was a high chance of being drafted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Everyone does. Link Follow the link for real live actual facts. 843431[/snapback] I don't think their "response" to myth #1 is all that great. They are making the argument that because 90% of their recruits have high school diplomas that they are more educated then average. Well, high school diplomas don't mean crap anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Someone *is* recognized as the primary author of the Constitution and it's not Jefferson (who was the primary author of the Declaration). 843468[/snapback] Jefferson, if memory serves, sent the navy to Med and is not the author of the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 And what do you think will happen to college enrollment in those fields if there was a high chance of being drafted? 843522[/snapback] It may be a boon for Canadian Universities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts