Politics: J'accuse!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or if we are hit by a massive terrorist attack and many of our first responders are in Iraq.

Originally posted by Not Me
See my "Iraq as Fly Paper for Terrorists" posts of yore.

Would be awfully nifty if true. If, however, Kim Jong Il decides to open the nuclear Wal-Mart sometime in the next year or so, we might be able to massacre the shit out of, say, Basra or Fallujah or bomb the mountains of Tora Bora again, but meantime we'll only have one active division sitting within half a globe's reach of Pyongyang.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is not a choice. That is mandatory service.

Sure its mandatory service. Its just not mandatory military service, i.e., a draft. That's what we were talking about, right?

Hell(Do they have a smiley face where I'm sticking my tongue)oout?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's not true. I, an atheist, can ridicule christianity all I want. When I do, I get knowing and agreeing nods from the most surprising of sources.

(But, damn, when I say something against the others . . . )

Just try saying something about Tiger Woods internalizing racism IRL and watch the "you racist fuck"s start flying. Thank goodness we have this place where you can discuss such things without . . . oh, nevermind.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well its certainly not fair to consider in a narrow light. The fact is, there are tremendous geographic, ethnic and income concentrations in the military.

And why would it be a bad thing for Americans to more uniformly suffer the risks when they (as a nation) support a war?

Bottom line for me is that I don't care if infantry manpower ends up increasing. I'd rather just see some sort of shared and equalizing contribution to society from some of the groups and individuals that historically don't contribute anything near what they draw.

Hello

I'm not necessarily against a draft if it becomes necessary, but not on the hogwash "it's discriminatory" grounds. This myth has been proven to be false, as whites make up a greater percentage of the militiary than they do IRL. Geographic, to me, has no relevance. Income? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is a VOLUNTEER military. That means people have a choice. You may say that this is not a real choice, but one of necessity, but I have yet to see stats back that up. The fact is that the military pays better wages than most 18-22 years who are not college grads can command.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am sure it is sincere, it is just not smart. As for fair, building a military shouldn't be about making up for unfairness in our society. It should be about building the best possible military that we can to protect American's interests. The military brass think an all volunteer military is a better military.

If our military starts to falter because it is over extended and they cannot recruit volunteers, they will no doubt change their minds on this. Only time will tell if this will occur.

The military is not a tool to be used to social engineer and make up for unfairness in our society. That is what the tax code is for.

I was with you uhtil the last line.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was with you uhtil the last line.

I think that was a statement of fact, not an opinion.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not necessarily against a draft if it becomes necessary, but not on the hogwash "it's discriminatory" grounds. This myth has been proven to be false, as whites make up a greater percentage of the militiary than they do IRL. Geographic, to me, has no relevance. Income? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is a VOLUNTEER military. That means people have a choice. You may say that this is not a real choice, but one of necessity, but I have yet to see stats back that up. The fact is that the military pays better wages than most 18-22 years who are not college grads can command.

My lord, I gotta ask, but do you have a cite for "whites make up a greater percentage of the military"?

Also, I'm not saying its not a choice now, though we are all coerced into our actions for some reason or another, just not always most directly by government.

On another note, the discrimination thing is an argument against the old draft, not necessarily for a new draft. The argument today is that a.) a bunch of armchair generals b.) support wars c.) in which they have no personal stake. If you want the equal rewards of a democracy (one man one vote), you should bear the equal risks.

That is, unless someone would like to suggest that we all already do bear the equal risks from the moment of birth.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
as whites make up a greater percentage of the militiary than they do IRL.

I am not sure that is true. I think that whites make up a greater percentage of front line troops (compared to their percentage in US population as a whole) and rural whites are disproportionately likely to die in combat:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rmy-usat_x.htm

I think blacks enlist in a higher percentage (20%) than they are in the US population (12%)

Originally posted by sgtclub
That means people have a choice. You may say that this is not a real choice, but one of necessity, but I have yet to see stats back that up. The fact is that the military pays better wages than most 18-22 years who are not college grads can command.

I think those of you who say that these people enlist largely for the economics really are selling these people short. Many are very patriotic people.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
My lord, I gotta ask, but do you have a cite for "whites make up a greater percentage of the military"?

Great "cite please" call. I had my facts wrong.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-b...1552&printer=1

What I was thinking of is that whites make up a greater proportional percentage of those holding combat positions, though this isn't expressly set out in this article.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
My lord, I gotta ask, but do you have a cite for "whites make up a greater percentage of the military"?

I think he meant they make up a larger percentage of the combat forces (as compared to their percentage in the US population) and make up a greater percentage of the combat deaths (than their percentage in the US population).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I was thinking of is that whites make up a greater proportional percentage of those holding combat positions, though this isn't expressly set out in this article.

It is set out in the article that I cited to. It is not just that whites make up a larger percentage of the combat forces, whites make up a larger percentage of the deaths (relative to their percentage in the US population).

I bet if they studied it, Reps make up a larger percentage of combat troops/deaths compared to their percentage in the population as a whole.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was with you uhtil the last line.

[joke]That is what the tax code is for. [/joke] A sad, but true, joke.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think he meant they make up a larger percentage of the combat forces (as compared to their percentage in the US population) and make up a greater percentage of the combat deaths (than their percentage in the US population).

I don't mean for this to offend any particular groups, but I suspect that 1.) "combat forces" is probably true and 2.) "combat deaths" is probably true only if we consider the very most recent 25 years (i.e., post-Vietnam).

To add to your guesses, I guarantee that you would find that graduates of Ranger school tend to be at the shorter end of the yardstick too.

Reps? Sure. But it seems like most of the great war wounds in congress belong to dems. Weird that, no?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Reps? Sure. But it seems like most of the great war wounds in congress belong to dems.

Well, at least the Purple Hearts do.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I don't mean for this to offend any particular groups, but . . .2.) "combat deaths" is probably true only if we consider the very most recent 25 years (i.e., post-Vietnam).

Not true. See the article I posted above.