-=>> Bob Klahn wrote to Dave Drum <=-

 DD>> Why do you have this stick up your butt about military
 DD>> service? If a person cannot wield a weapon then that person
 DD>> should not be in the military. Period.

 BK>>  Why not? Conscientious objectors serve as medics.

 DD> We're not (or weren't) talking about CO status. We're
 DD> talking about people who, for whatever (physical) reason do
 DD> not fit into a combat role.

 They can fit into a non-combat role. As do concientious
 objectors.

 DD>> In some (civilian,
 DD>> non-combat) support function - thereby freeing up a troop
 DD>> who *IS* capable of wielding a weapon.

 BK>>  There are a great many support functions that are filled by
 BK>>  military personel. I want to reduce the number of civilians
 BK>>  doing the support jobs. The point of being in the military is,
 BK>>  you go where you are sent and do what you are told to do. That
 BK>>  doesn't apply to civilians. Service is doing what is needed, not
 BK>>  what you want to do.

 DD> We agree on this, more-or-less. Where we disagree is that
 DD> your mind-set assuming if the prospective citizen is *not*
 DD> in the military then s/he is not subject to mandatory
 DD> service. Under my proposal once you enlist into National
 DD> Service - you are subject to being sent where the powers
 DD> that be will it and doing what you are required to do. If

 Ok, but I want them to get basic training first. Just in case.

 DD> you "drag-up" on that then you are OUT of the program,
 DD> automatically in second-class status with NO HOPE of ever
 DD> gaining citizenship. Service is service - whether it wears
 DD> BDU or blue jeans.

 BK> Your own words, immediately below, are pretty much what I am
 BK> advocating.

 DD>>> military training should be required of all who are
 DD>>> physically able ... using the Marine Corps philosophy that
 DD>>> everyone is a rifleman first and a (whatever) second. Those
 DD>>> who have gone through the training would then keep their
 DD>>> basic weapon for the rest of their lives ... ready to
 DD>>> spring to action at a moment's notice. Latter day Minute
 DD>>> Men as it were.

 bk>>>  Even conscientious objectors can serve.

 DD> And be trained in the use of a weapon. Note my requirement
 DD> "of all who are physically able". Not a word about "morally
 DD> able".

 Few are incapable of training in the use of a weapon. Even from
 a wheelchair you can fire a weapon.

 Or fly a predator.

 And those who can't can serve in another capacity.

 DD>>> Yup.

 bk>>>>  And it should not be a pre-requisite for voting, but simpley
 bk>>>>  required.

 DD>>> Nope. There should be some extra (potential) reward for
 DD>>> putting your arse on the line. Those not serving and just

 BK>>>  What I said, required, not optional.

 DD> There we disagree, and I suspect, always will. My feeling
 DD> is if you wanna vote and have a say - no matter how tiny -
 DD> the you MUST volunteer your service.

 I don't care if they volunteer. It should be expected from the
 get go. They grow up knowing they are going to have to serve.
 For one thing, you never know if some day their service may be
 requried on the spot, and no time to train.

 DD>> I disagree. Those not serving voluntarily are automatically
 DD>> second-class residents (not citizens). If they do not value
 DD>> the country highly enough to volunteer their service what
 DD>> sort of citizen/troop/voter would they make?  I volunteered

 BK>>  As good as those drafted in the wars of the 20th century.

 DD> Different circumstances, different rules. We're discussing
 DD> something different here, not what has obtained in past.

 The rules really don't change. Not the rules of human behavior.

 DD>> when I was seventeen. You volunteered. Many were drafted.

 BK>>  Many volunteered as an alternative to being drafted. I would
 BK>>  guess most who fought in vietnam were drafted. I believe most
 BK>>  who served in WWII were drafted, as they stopped enlistments and
 BK>>  drafted all those who served after a short time. Don't know for
 BK>>  sure how long that lasted, but about 11 million men were drafted
 BK>>  in that period.

 DD> My father tried to volunteer shortly after Pearl Harbour
 DD> and was rejected because he was in an "essential
 DD> occupation". Later (in 1944) he was drafted into the Navy.
 DD> My kid brother volunteered his draft (a somewhat different
 DD> thing from just being drafted) and wound up in My Tho, down
 DD> in the Vietnamese delta. Different circumstances ... once
 DD> again.

 Volunteering for the draft was essentially enlisting with a two
 year committment. And not even a pretense of a choice.

 DD> And many did not serve at all.

 And I don't want that to happen again. With a volunteer army you
 do get the most committed, but also the most desperate. I don't
 want the upper crust to live that way off the blood of those so
 desperate they put their lives on the line to protect the top
 rung.

 BK>>  Yep.

 BK>>  ...

 ...

 BK>>>  If they were. Most of those running for short terms like that
 BK>>>  are single issue or limited issue politicans. Get what they want
 BK>>>  and screw the rest.

 DD> Under the current system, that is true. And may be for what
 DD> is being proposed. But, that doesn't mean that we have to
 DD> elect them. People, as a whole, generally get the
 DD> government they deserve.

 Those people may, but the rest of us don't deserve to suffer
 under them. 50%+1 should not be allowed to inflict repeated
 learning curves on the rest of us.

 DD>> Aaaaahhhh ... but, that is why we need to change the
 DD>> system. So that no one gets more than two terms and the
 DD>> single issue doofuses got subsumed in a new class every
 DD>> election.

 BK>>  A new class of single issue doofuses.

 DD> See above.

 I'm too old to deal with that.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Compassionate Conservatism has been replaced by Friendly Fascism.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a