-=> 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.

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

We agree on this, more-or-less. Where we disagree is that your mind-set
assuming if the prospective citizen is *not* in the military then s/he is not
subject to mandatory service. Under my proposal once you enlist into National
Service - you are subject to being sent where the powers that be will it and
doing what you are required to do. If you "drag-up" on that then
you are OUT of
the program, automatically in second-class status with NO HOPE of ever gaining
citizenship. Service is service - whether it wears BDU or blue jeans. 
 
 BK>  You 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.

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

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

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

My father tried to volunteer shortly after Pearl Harbour and was rejected
because he was in an "essential occupation". Later (in 1944) he was drafted
into the Navy. My kid brother volunteered his draft (a somewhat different thing
from just being drafted) and wound up in My Tho, down in the Vietnamese delta.
Different circumstances ... once again.
 
 DD> And many did not serve at all.

 BK>  Yep.

 BK>  ...

 bk>>>  After I saw the disaster term limits caused in Michigan I got to
 bk>>>  doubting the principle. As the Toledo Blade's ombudsman, who is
 bk>>>  in Michigan and a prof at a journalism school there, as well as
 bk>>>  a long time journalist wrote, when the Michigan budget was
 bk>>>  practically impossible to balance there was not one single
 bk>>>  member of the legislature who had been there just 6 years before
 bk>>>  when a lot of those programs and tax cuts had been voted in.

 DD>> So what? If they were responsible and in tune to the needs
 DD>> of the job they should have done what was necessary and
 DD>> screw the special interests and their lobbyists.

 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.

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

See above.

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... If god had meant us to vote she would have given us candidates!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32