Mandatory military service

Mandatory military service?

  • No

    Votes: 16 76.2%

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • No opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
Hey, do you Yanks still have that highschool army stuff? What's it called? ROTS or summat like that?
 
Yes...but in High School it's called JROTC, or Junior Reserve Officers Corps. It doesn't really do much unless you enlist right out of HS, though...or go to college and get into the college level ROTC.
 
More info...think before you post...;)

NEW YORK, Jan. 6 — Charlie Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, was talking about bringing back the draft the other night, and as he spoke he seemed to make more and more sense, which is sometimes unusual in today’s politics.

FIFTY YEARS AGO, Rangel walked out of town and went right in the Army, joined it to serve his country in a war very few remember fought in a place that has jumped right back into the headlines: Korea.
“I don’t understand some of these guys,” Rangel was saying, referring to so many of these phony tough guys who sit alongside him in Congress. “They keep saying, ‘We’ve got to go get Saddam right now. Hit him hard. Teach him a lesson.’ But they never answer the question, whose kids are going to end up doing the fighting? Not theirs. That’s for sure.”
Naturally, there aren’t enough votes to restore the idea of a draft. And if it appeared that the outcome was even close, there would be riots in those pleasant, white suburbs where parents regard their sons and daughters as national treasures not to be wasted on outfits like the Army or the Marine Corps.

PRIMED FOR WAR

On Thursday, a young guy I’ve known since he was born left for Ranger School at Fort Benning in Georgia. His name is Joe Goodwin. He went to Harvard, where he lit up every classroom with his brilliance. After graduation, he decided to return the favor he was granted when he was given citizenship at birth. So he enlisted, just like Rangel did all those years before, flew through basic training, did extremely well in Officer Candidate School, volunteered for the Rangers and now figures that his name will soon be on a ticket punched for the desert.
His mother and father are proud. And worried. They are like a lot of other parents of young guys — young women as well — who proudly wear the uniform of the United States of America. They sit there today, wondering what’s going on.
Sure, they know that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein is evil personified. But the parents are of an age where they recall life for the nearly five decades when we successfully contained the Soviet Union. Unlike this punk Saddam, Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev and the other paranoid nut cases who ran Russia had numerous weapons of mass destruction literally at their fingertips. But we waited them out, spent them into oblivion, contained them and then watched as the wall between East and West Berlin fell.
Now we are again engaged in a war. It’s a world war, but the enemy doesn’t wear identifiable uniforms or march in regimental strength. Unfortunately, we ignored this enemy for too long. We figured oceans and billions spent for defense ensured our safety and survival.
Well, we were wrong. There are plenty of people who hate us for who we are and what we have more than they despise or disagree with what we think or what faith we practice. And, simply put, they have to be tracked down and taken off the roster. How will punching our way into Baghdad help accomplish the goal of locating and eliminating those who are quite eager to come here and kill us?
The Middle East and too much of the rest of the world have become a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment. The first bombing run over Baghdad and our first incursion into Iraq will provide these lunatics with a recruiting program Osama Bin Laden could only dream about.

PAYING THE PRICE

And guess who pays the price? Women like Arelis Checo, Steven Checo’s mom. A week ago, there was a funeral Mass in Mother Cabrini Church in Washington Heights for young Checo, who was a sergeant in the Marine Corps when he was killed in Afghanistan last month. He was 22, a proud and noble enlisted man serving the nation.
That’s what Rangel was talking about when he was so angry about all these tough guys who can’t wait to get on TV to holler that we have to kill Saddam now. No waiting. Do it now. And, by the way, let’s whack these North Korean imbeciles while we’re at it. Then we’ll get back to the task at hand, hammering the demented disciples of Bin Laden.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? The good guys winning it all; except things don’t always work that way in real life.
The truth is that reality doesn’t always have a happy ending. War isn’t a video game or a quick, bloodless exercise where our overwhelming power guarantees a lasting peace. It means dead Americans, funerals, casualty lists and a military filled with honorable volunteers fighting and dying for a country where we rush toward a three-, four- or five-front war without really discussing the merits or the meaning.
The President of the United States has sincere beliefs and great determination, but he has yet to tell people like Charlie Rangel, Arelis Checo, Joe Goodwin and the rest of us where we’re headed, and why.
Click to expand...

Source...
 
ROTC is still around, my brother is applying for a ROTC medical scholarship right now. Free ride through a $100K education, sounds enticing even to me.

As for the article Solo, I think the author makes some very good points. Specifically, on the topic of who's kids are going to war, the US' agressive posture towards enemies, and the effects of US military action on how the World (specifically, the Arab world) perceives America.

My $.02
 
The only problem I see in the whole article is his racially charged statement on caucasians. (Now, of course, everyone is going to look for that statement only :rolleyes: ) Doesn't everyone think their children are more important than the kids down the block?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Doesn't everyone think their children are more important than the kids down the block?
Click to expand...
True, that statement doesn't do a lot for credibility, but i thought it got his point across.
 
Gonz said:
. With the exception of the nuts, who are with us, draft or not, what harm can come from mandatory service?

I still say no, but I suggest some form of military/civilian service be required. The details need to be worked out but it's not a bad idea after all.
Click to expand...


dude, that shit will turn into motherfucking REEDUCATION CAMPS!!!!
 
I disagree with the notion that everyone in my age group has no guidance in life. I think there are a lot of 18-22 year olds that are just wandering around like an idiot, but not all.

I have friends who went to college, then dropped out after their first semester, and now they work at a gas station, or a grocery store, or something like that. I have a 21 year old cousin who graduated high school, worked for 4 months in the family business, then got so lazy that my uncle fired him (imagine how lazy you have to be to get fired by your father), and he's now spent 3 years unemployed, uneducated, living at home. Those are the people who a military service might benefit.

However, it's an unfair stereotype to think that everyone is like that.
 
Altron said:
I disagree with the notion that everyone in my age group has no guidance in life. I think there are a lot of 18-22 year olds that are just wandering around like an idiot, but not all.

I have friends who went to college, then dropped out after their first semester, and now they work at a gas station, or a grocery store, or something like that. I have a 21 year old cousin who graduated high school, worked for 4 months in the family business, then got so lazy that my uncle fired him (imagine how lazy you have to be to get fired by your father), and he's now spent 3 years unemployed, uneducated, living at home. Those are the people who a military service might benefit.

However, it's an unfair stereotype to think that everyone is like that.
Click to expand...

Of course it's unfair. All stereotypes are unfair. That doesn't make them any less accurate.
 
but they apply to a large enough percentage of the group that it's not unreasonable to base prejudgements on it. And if it's wrong from time to time, well then we're all pleasantly surprised, aren't we?
 
Stereotypes can be beneficial when they are used to keep people safe, but not when they are used to put people in danger.

If I see Muhammed al-Akbar Jihad getting on the airplane in front of me, and his turban is ticking, you can bet your ass that I want security to search him. Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims, and long as his legal rights are not infringed upon, I would prefer that the people who fit the profile of a terrorists are searched extra thoroughly.

But just cuz the neighbor's kid dropped out of majoring in Communications so he can bag groceries and smoke pot, that doesn't mean I should be in the desert for 2 years, getting shot at by some America-hating shitheads.
 
Imagine walking around thinking all asians know karate and all southerners screw their cousins.
 
I guess he never saw Die Hard.

Or heard of the IRA or abortion clinic bombers or the unabomber.
 
I'm talking about when I go to the airport. If I was getting an abortion, then yes, I'd be more worried about those terrorists. If I was in Northern Ireland, then I'd be worried about the IRA terrorists. If I was in 1995, then I'd be worried about the Unabomber. If I was Bruce Willis, then I'd be ready to shoot everyone in the face, because everyone wants to kill me. But when I'm at the airport, I'm worried about OBL and his muslim buddies, and I'd rather have airport security searching people who look suspicious, instead of conducting random searches on people who don't seem suspicious at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top