You are joking, right?
Jan. 8th, 2003 12:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hkellickUnfortunately not.
Apparently New York's Representative Charles Rangel has introduced a bill to Congress to reinstitute the draft.
His reasonings are, in part because he wants to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a unilateral strike against Iraq (which I can agree with. The fact remains that no matter what the military says, a strike against Iraq will get messy. People will die. KIDS, by and large, will die.)
His second reason, on the other hand, I think I despise him for. He suggests that the majority of the armed forces is filled with minorities and poor people and that, if a war with Iraq were to happen, then rich white kids would have to serve to.
What I don't understand is... is this how you need to make your message heard? By even SUGGESTING reinstituting the draft?!?!
And, as for point two, feh! The people in the armed forces now, whether they be minorities or poor or whatever CHOSE to be in the army. No one forced them in. Hence, I have no issue with them being the one fighting the wars.
Luckily (and scarily), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is coming to the rescue by disagreeing and suggesting that the cons of mandatory militart service still outweigh the pros.
But FEH!
I mean, I understand this guys message... but as an average American, I am NOT fighting in a war I don't agree with. That's not even FUNNY! Make your point another way.
Perhaps a fairer bill would be (not that this would ever happen) a selective draft. Only the children and/or grandchildren of those who are for a strike in Iraq should be forced to go to service. Perhaps that's too difficult to enforce, though. How about the family members of those in office who support a strike on Iraq.
My mother tells me a story about my grandfather and uncle. My grandfather USED to be Pro-Vietnam until the draft was called into action and his son, my uncle, Jeff was early on the list of draftees. I think Jeff got off because he was going to college, however it turned my grandfather arounhd immediately once he realized he might have to bury his own child for a war so many miles away.
This is why I'm against a strike against Iraq. It's all so BLOODY STUPID. I honestly truly believe that the only reason there's talk of a strike against Iraq is because Big Daddy Bush failed 10 years ago in operation Desert Storm.
I understand the war against terror. Al Qaeda brought... is still bringing.. the war to us. We need to do what we can to destroy Al Qaeda, but that war will be fought, I suspect, mostly by secret ops and intelligence communities, not our armies.
But how can you justify going after Iraq while the UN has found nothing there and while North Korea is saying "Yes, we have Nuclear Weapons and you can't do nothing about it." (Not that I want to see us go after North Korea either. This is something the UN should be handling, not just the US.)
Um... where was I?
...
I guess I'll just post.
Apparently New York's Representative Charles Rangel has introduced a bill to Congress to reinstitute the draft.
His reasonings are, in part because he wants to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a unilateral strike against Iraq (which I can agree with. The fact remains that no matter what the military says, a strike against Iraq will get messy. People will die. KIDS, by and large, will die.)
His second reason, on the other hand, I think I despise him for. He suggests that the majority of the armed forces is filled with minorities and poor people and that, if a war with Iraq were to happen, then rich white kids would have to serve to.
What I don't understand is... is this how you need to make your message heard? By even SUGGESTING reinstituting the draft?!?!
And, as for point two, feh! The people in the armed forces now, whether they be minorities or poor or whatever CHOSE to be in the army. No one forced them in. Hence, I have no issue with them being the one fighting the wars.
Luckily (and scarily), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is coming to the rescue by disagreeing and suggesting that the cons of mandatory militart service still outweigh the pros.
But FEH!
I mean, I understand this guys message... but as an average American, I am NOT fighting in a war I don't agree with. That's not even FUNNY! Make your point another way.
Perhaps a fairer bill would be (not that this would ever happen) a selective draft. Only the children and/or grandchildren of those who are for a strike in Iraq should be forced to go to service. Perhaps that's too difficult to enforce, though. How about the family members of those in office who support a strike on Iraq.
My mother tells me a story about my grandfather and uncle. My grandfather USED to be Pro-Vietnam until the draft was called into action and his son, my uncle, Jeff was early on the list of draftees. I think Jeff got off because he was going to college, however it turned my grandfather arounhd immediately once he realized he might have to bury his own child for a war so many miles away.
This is why I'm against a strike against Iraq. It's all so BLOODY STUPID. I honestly truly believe that the only reason there's talk of a strike against Iraq is because Big Daddy Bush failed 10 years ago in operation Desert Storm.
I understand the war against terror. Al Qaeda brought... is still bringing.. the war to us. We need to do what we can to destroy Al Qaeda, but that war will be fought, I suspect, mostly by secret ops and intelligence communities, not our armies.
But how can you justify going after Iraq while the UN has found nothing there and while North Korea is saying "Yes, we have Nuclear Weapons and you can't do nothing about it." (Not that I want to see us go after North Korea either. This is something the UN should be handling, not just the US.)
Um... where was I?
...
I guess I'll just post.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-08 09:58 am (UTC)Thank you for posting about this, though. I've been home so little lately that I haven't had time to really read the news - not even the small amount that I usually do.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-08 12:34 pm (UTC)