MinutemanMedia.org
BORROWED OPINIONSA DRAFT WOULD MAKE THE WAR MORE REAL – by Mark Drought
President George W. Bush continues to insist that he heeds his generals’ counsel on military matters. Nonetheless, no one is surprised by his lack of enthusiasm for a recent suggestion from Gen. Douglas Lute, his War Czar, that “it makes sense to certainly consider” reinstating the draft.
Like many of the ideas rejected by this administration, the draft may be one whose time has come. This isn’t solely because neocon mismanagement has broken the U.S. military, which desperately needs more soldiers. Nor is it because more-diverse armed forces would result in a lower percentage of poor and minorities dying in Iraq, as asserted by N.Y. Congressman Charles Rangel.
Nor is it because we’ll need to “either pull back on our global commitments or increase our military force,” as Dan Rather has warned.
The most important argument for a draft is that it might engage the American people, whom this administration has deliberately insulated from the effects of its foreign policy.
Mr. Bush has largely had a free hand in the war on terror, because the public has been shielded from most of its consequences, including the body bags returning from Iraq. The Republicans have even taken the unprecedented of cutting taxes while spending $500 billion to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although most Americans have turned against the Iraq War, we’ve shown little interest in actively opposing it, and our apathy has infected the politicians we elected in 2006 to end it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brain may be telling her to resist GOP excesses, but her heart’s not in the right place––it’s set on increasing her slim Democratic majority. Our spineless Congress has shown no inclination to cut off funding for the occupation and Pelosi didn’t even put up a fight over warantless wiretaps.
Forty years ago, Americans were polarized by the Vietnam War. Our country was awash in political dissent, especially on college campuses, which were hotbeds of the peace movement. Then why such pervasive apathy on 2007? One major factor is that our all-volunteer army enables us most of us to feel totally disconnected from the actions of the military.
During the Vietnam era, the draft directly affected young people, as well as their parents, involving a sizeable percentage of ordinary American families. In 1970, my father hoped I’d be drafted, because military service might make a man out of me. But once my draft lottery number (#22) was selected, my mother wanted him to keep me out of Vietnam by slicing off one of my toes with his table saw.
The apathy of today’s young people compares unfavorably with the activism of college students during the ‘60s, but the moral implications of this are dubious.
Without the draft hanging over our heads most of us would have spent the ‘60s ignoring Vietnam. Support for the antiwar movement was a mile wide and a half-inch deep, and it evaporated quickly enough once the draft ended in ’73. Teenagers of any generation are self-absorbed, self-interested conformists who are afraid of being different. Even those who disapprove of the Iraq war have little incentive to get excited about something that isn’t likely to affect them directly.
Been to any Moveon.org meetings lately? They’re as geriatric as the protesters shouting “Bring Home the Troops” on street corners. And a good percentage of the left-wing blogosphere that’s so apoplectic about the ware is made up of graying boomers.
But college students – and their parents – might be roused from their lethargy by a draft. Let this generation of teenagers that spend their 18th birthdays worrying about their draft numbers, like we did and they might start singing a different tune.
The best way to arouse the apathetic about government policies is to make them realize that those policies could result in Muslim holy warriors shooting at them. We need a draft, because – as the 12776 Revolution should have taught us – angry Americans are better Americans.
Vaughn Tolle said:
The draft. A term that now has no meaning for those born after 1956. No one is threatened by "the draft" from pursuing his or her goals in life. Yes, males must register with Selective Service in order to be eligible for federal student aid, but the registration has no meaning in reality.
I've posted my thoughts on many things, but not directly on the draft itself. So, here we go.
The draft allows a "ray of sunshine" to be imposed on the military. The constant turnover of members of the service allows things to become public that an "all volunteer" force can, and IMHO, does keep under cover. It is my recollection that the My Lai massacre first came to light after a discharged draftee spilled the beans.
The draft allows the population, as a whole, to become acquainted with how the military operates, thinks, talks, etc., making it much more difficult for the "government" to use the military in ways it should not be used, with justifications which mean nothing if one has never been exposed to the military, but which cause the BS filter of anyone who was ever "in" to become activated.
The draft prevents people from assuming the "hero" status in discussions; if everyone has to go, volunteer or not, there's nothing heroic about being in the service; it's just another thing we all have to do.
If, indeed, there exists a global threat of terrorism to be battled by a "global war", there exists no rationale for not drafting everyone to beef up the armed forces to sufficient numbers so this "fight we must win" can be won. This, of course, flies in the face of the founders, who rightfully feared the effects of a large, standing army.
The draft would, I believe, bring some much needed diversity into the military. Currently, from reports I read, things I hear, the "all volunteer force" is rapidly becoming a home for those who are sometimes described as "fundamentalist Christians". By forcing these people to deal with a great number of folks who do not share their views, it diminishes their influence, and overall, IMHO, allows for a more representative group of people serving.
The draft exposes some to the military who would not otherwise be to their benefit, and the benefit of the services. One of my "bosses" with whom I served would not have ever considered the military but for staying "out of the draft" by enrolling in ROTC and then going to Law School on some form of delayed entry. He was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, and his abilities were well-used in the USAF. He ended up making the military a career. Similarly, two of the best NCOs with whom I served were in the USAF due to the draft; they, too, decided to make a career out of it, admitting that they would not have ever enlisted but for the draft. They, as well as the country, benefited.
You will note that I've not approached the theme of the header. That was deliberate on my part. I've many thoughts on this, as well, and perhaps will share this later.
I've posted my thoughts on many things, but not directly on the draft itself. So, here we go.
The draft allows a "ray of sunshine" to be imposed on the military. The constant turnover of members of the service allows things to become public that an "all volunteer" force can, and IMHO, does keep under cover. It is my recollection that the My Lai massacre first came to light after a discharged draftee spilled the beans.
The draft allows the population, as a whole, to become acquainted with how the military operates, thinks, talks, etc., making it much more difficult for the "government" to use the military in ways it should not be used, with justifications which mean nothing if one has never been exposed to the military, but which cause the BS filter of anyone who was ever "in" to become activated.
The draft prevents people from assuming the "hero" status in discussions; if everyone has to go, volunteer or not, there's nothing heroic about being in the service; it's just another thing we all have to do.
If, indeed, there exists a global threat of terrorism to be battled by a "global war", there exists no rationale for not drafting everyone to beef up the armed forces to sufficient numbers so this "fight we must win" can be won. This, of course, flies in the face of the founders, who rightfully feared the effects of a large, standing army.
The draft would, I believe, bring some much needed diversity into the military. Currently, from reports I read, things I hear, the "all volunteer force" is rapidly becoming a home for those who are sometimes described as "fundamentalist Christians". By forcing these people to deal with a great number of folks who do not share their views, it diminishes their influence, and overall, IMHO, allows for a more representative group of people serving.
The draft exposes some to the military who would not otherwise be to their benefit, and the benefit of the services. One of my "bosses" with whom I served would not have ever considered the military but for staying "out of the draft" by enrolling in ROTC and then going to Law School on some form of delayed entry. He was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, and his abilities were well-used in the USAF. He ended up making the military a career. Similarly, two of the best NCOs with whom I served were in the USAF due to the draft; they, too, decided to make a career out of it, admitting that they would not have ever enlisted but for the draft. They, as well as the country, benefited.
You will note that I've not approached the theme of the header. That was deliberate on my part. I've many thoughts on this, as well, and perhaps will share this later.
Rox said:
That's okay, VT, you don't have to address it. I will. :)
I was chuckling while reading, just waiting for the shoe to drop. It did, and I'm pleased. There are currently two versions for a draft, one waiting for the House, the other for the Senate. They've been there for a few years. Why? I think as a taunt to the republicans, more than anything. Neither of them allows a student deferment. Both agree to draft, not only men, but women, too. (I guess those sex change operations won't make any difference. ::grin::)
Am I in favor of it? Gee, I hated watching the lottery numbers pulled when I was in high school. I hate war even more. But for all the reasons stated both in the article and by VT, I wouldn't speak against a draft. Georgie won't like it though. A draft would show just how downright stupid he's been and, yes, wake up one helluva lot of people who wouldn't remain quiet any longer.
I was chuckling while reading, just waiting for the shoe to drop. It did, and I'm pleased. There are currently two versions for a draft, one waiting for the House, the other for the Senate. They've been there for a few years. Why? I think as a taunt to the republicans, more than anything. Neither of them allows a student deferment. Both agree to draft, not only men, but women, too. (I guess those sex change operations won't make any difference. ::grin::)
Am I in favor of it? Gee, I hated watching the lottery numbers pulled when I was in high school. I hate war even more. But for all the reasons stated both in the article and by VT, I wouldn't speak against a draft. Georgie won't like it though. A draft would show just how downright stupid he's been and, yes, wake up one helluva lot of people who wouldn't remain quiet any longer.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox,
Speaking of watching the lottery; imagine my absolute "joy" in seeing number 88 drawn for my birthdate in the first lottery. I knew this made me number 1 + once my 2S expired. I share your thoughts on the potential uproar if the draft is reinstated, which I would expect to make the VN protests look a bit like a walk in the park.
Speaking of watching the lottery; imagine my absolute "joy" in seeing number 88 drawn for my birthdate in the first lottery. I knew this made me number 1 + once my 2S expired. I share your thoughts on the potential uproar if the draft is reinstated, which I would expect to make the VN protests look a bit like a walk in the park.
Rox said:
One would hope so, VT.
I completely understand why you went into the USAF.
I remember my ex saying that every male should have to serve in the military. (He was ANG, just like GW. But definitely not the Champagne group.) He believed it made one more mature. I think he was thinking of his younger brother at the time. LOL For some, I think that's true. And there are those who flourish in the much more structured environment. I know others that it didn't help at all.
I completely understand why you went into the USAF.
I remember my ex saying that every male should have to serve in the military. (He was ANG, just like GW. But definitely not the Champagne group.) He believed it made one more mature. I think he was thinking of his younger brother at the time. LOL For some, I think that's true. And there are those who flourish in the much more structured environment. I know others that it didn't help at all.
Danny said:
Vaughn and Rox,
I think to some extent you are correct a draft would certainly wake up more people to the reality of war. In a small sense(through my brother in law) I am aware of it. I think it would wake up some college students, others I wonder about. I certainly think it would be effective to those who are called to service. Yet, I wonder to those who are not called, some people really from my experience really do not seem to care one way or the other.
I think it would definitely get more parents to wake up, but I think to some extent many of the parents probably already are. To be honest, I don't really know given the aptitude of those I know that a draft would even get some of the students I have had classes with to get involved(either supporting the war or not supporting the war). Seriously, it is as if they don't care, even about dying/death, etc. The attitude is strictly live for the moment who cares about anything else.
Perhaps a healthy dose of war would change that... but I can't say it would. I can suspect it would.
I think to some extent you are correct a draft would certainly wake up more people to the reality of war. In a small sense(through my brother in law) I am aware of it. I think it would wake up some college students, others I wonder about. I certainly think it would be effective to those who are called to service. Yet, I wonder to those who are not called, some people really from my experience really do not seem to care one way or the other.
I think it would definitely get more parents to wake up, but I think to some extent many of the parents probably already are. To be honest, I don't really know given the aptitude of those I know that a draft would even get some of the students I have had classes with to get involved(either supporting the war or not supporting the war). Seriously, it is as if they don't care, even about dying/death, etc. The attitude is strictly live for the moment who cares about anything else.
Perhaps a healthy dose of war would change that... but I can't say it would. I can suspect it would.
Rox said:
Danny, I'm not so sure the uninvolvement of the present younger generation is any different than it was for my generation...until the draft. The majority of people in this country aren't concerned about a lot of things until something directly affects them. Such is the nature of humans.
longhorn said:
Well, at least now, there is one way to avoid military service that carries only a few social repercussions now.
Draft adverse folks can always claim they are gay... then do the religious ex-gay rehab.. then claim Jesus "cured" them, and they are now STRAIGHT FOR LIFE!
heheheheh. There is no system that cant be gamed...
Draft adverse folks can always claim they are gay... then do the religious ex-gay rehab.. then claim Jesus "cured" them, and they are now STRAIGHT FOR LIFE!
heheheheh. There is no system that cant be gamed...
longhorn said:
Just think of all the Lesbian Avengers (google it) the military misses out on now. Hell, they probably could have won and ended the war long before now. An army of lovers, etc.
longhorn said:
...and who would do a better job of cleaning up the mess, turning the ruble into real estate, and generally brightening up the ruins than the gay guys?
Send in the lesbians first, then the gay guys for clean up and humanitarian purposes.
Oh, but DADT wont allow that :( Guess the straight folks will have to deal with the mess!
Send in the lesbians first, then the gay guys for clean up and humanitarian purposes.
Oh, but DADT wont allow that :( Guess the straight folks will have to deal with the mess!
Vaughn Tolle said:
I join with Rox concerning the noninvolvement of my generation until the ramp up of the draft in connection with Viet Nam, which began to occur in earnest in the 1967 - 1968 time frame. Until then, there had been enough folks not going to college, etc., to feed the machine without really disturbing the "privileged" members of the populace in general.
Once it started to become clear what a mess the Viet Nam war was, more and more males began applying to college to forestall the draft; and, somewhere in that time frame, certain changes began with reference to deferments, etc., that eventually ended up with all graduate studies, other than medicine and theology, not being eligible for a continuation of the student deferment. This resulted in an increasing number of applications to divinity school.
Those who had lost their 2S, due to academic nonperformance or graduation, started facing the realities of the draft; some went to Canada, some desperately sought enlistment in any reserve or guard unit, some enlisted, and others just cursed fate and went "in" when called. Then, as the years progressed, they started coming back and telling us what was really going on, much of which made the so-called "left wing media reports" look like government propaganda.
Until these thing came to be, the general college student populace went on, happy in their ignorance, going to the parties, worrying about their grades; in other words, pretty much as normal for those times. Then, a combination of events started activating the campuses; one, the decision to go to the lottery system (which I've always thought was due to pressure from the "powers that be" to give some certainty to the process, so if sonny was going to be drafted, there was enough time to see if favors could be granted, or work on medically disqualifying son from service), combined with the return of service members from VN, who often shared, in drunken conversations, their experiences. This kindled the activism that always underlies a certain segment of the college population, turning into a conflagration as more and more of the "privileged" began to realize their fate.
Of course, the media began having its doubts as to the credibility to be assigned to the military reports of "progress" in Viet Nam. This came to a head when Walter Cronkite essentially changed his position on a historic broadcast on CBS Evening News, much to the shock of a watching nation. If "Uncle Walter" said things were bad, then things must really be bad. Against this backdrop, the two changes mentioned above played out in an increasing cacophony.
Adding to the entirety of the late 60s early 70s experience was the continuation of the Civil Rights movement combined with a newly-hatched feminist movement, both of which had some militant elements. Combining these things with the new-found aversion to the Viet Nam war made campus protests an almost daily occurrence (well, if one was at KU at least), with a score card needed to determine whether it was an anti-war march, a civil rights march, or a feminist march. Oh, lest I forget, there were also occasional protests by Iranian students against the Shah.
Then came Kent State. After that, it was indeed difficult to find anyone who was truly apathetic about what was going on in Viet Nam or elsewhere, on both sides of the issue.
The above very long winded post is to illustrate a bit from my perspective just what it took to "shake up" the college students of my generation into that seething, roiling, political mass which was responsible for many changes, and why, in the absence of a fuse, there will not be such activism likely to again to occur over Iraq. The fuse might well be a reinstitution of a military draft, which, combined with the feelings of many concerning the state of the economy, etc., could result in a level of involvement and campus activism not seen in the past 35 years or so. Then, again, it might not, in light of Danny's thoughtful discussion of the "instant gratification" folks that seem omnipresent. My bet is on the former.
Once it started to become clear what a mess the Viet Nam war was, more and more males began applying to college to forestall the draft; and, somewhere in that time frame, certain changes began with reference to deferments, etc., that eventually ended up with all graduate studies, other than medicine and theology, not being eligible for a continuation of the student deferment. This resulted in an increasing number of applications to divinity school.
Those who had lost their 2S, due to academic nonperformance or graduation, started facing the realities of the draft; some went to Canada, some desperately sought enlistment in any reserve or guard unit, some enlisted, and others just cursed fate and went "in" when called. Then, as the years progressed, they started coming back and telling us what was really going on, much of which made the so-called "left wing media reports" look like government propaganda.
Until these thing came to be, the general college student populace went on, happy in their ignorance, going to the parties, worrying about their grades; in other words, pretty much as normal for those times. Then, a combination of events started activating the campuses; one, the decision to go to the lottery system (which I've always thought was due to pressure from the "powers that be" to give some certainty to the process, so if sonny was going to be drafted, there was enough time to see if favors could be granted, or work on medically disqualifying son from service), combined with the return of service members from VN, who often shared, in drunken conversations, their experiences. This kindled the activism that always underlies a certain segment of the college population, turning into a conflagration as more and more of the "privileged" began to realize their fate.
Of course, the media began having its doubts as to the credibility to be assigned to the military reports of "progress" in Viet Nam. This came to a head when Walter Cronkite essentially changed his position on a historic broadcast on CBS Evening News, much to the shock of a watching nation. If "Uncle Walter" said things were bad, then things must really be bad. Against this backdrop, the two changes mentioned above played out in an increasing cacophony.
Adding to the entirety of the late 60s early 70s experience was the continuation of the Civil Rights movement combined with a newly-hatched feminist movement, both of which had some militant elements. Combining these things with the new-found aversion to the Viet Nam war made campus protests an almost daily occurrence (well, if one was at KU at least), with a score card needed to determine whether it was an anti-war march, a civil rights march, or a feminist march. Oh, lest I forget, there were also occasional protests by Iranian students against the Shah.
Then came Kent State. After that, it was indeed difficult to find anyone who was truly apathetic about what was going on in Viet Nam or elsewhere, on both sides of the issue.
The above very long winded post is to illustrate a bit from my perspective just what it took to "shake up" the college students of my generation into that seething, roiling, political mass which was responsible for many changes, and why, in the absence of a fuse, there will not be such activism likely to again to occur over Iraq. The fuse might well be a reinstitution of a military draft, which, combined with the feelings of many concerning the state of the economy, etc., could result in a level of involvement and campus activism not seen in the past 35 years or so. Then, again, it might not, in light of Danny's thoughtful discussion of the "instant gratification" folks that seem omnipresent. My bet is on the former.
Rox said:
longhorn,
One of the funniest movies I remember from long ago was The Gay Deceivers (1969). Two guys claim to be gay to avoid the draft and Vietnam, but things get tricky when the recruiter gets suspicious.
It was campy, it was fun. I noticed a note on Internet Movie Database (imdb.com=a wealth of movie and tv info) that one should look for the picture of J. Edgar Hoover hanging on the wall in one shot. And this was long before the disclosure of his transvestite escapades.
One of the funniest movies I remember from long ago was The Gay Deceivers (1969). Two guys claim to be gay to avoid the draft and Vietnam, but things get tricky when the recruiter gets suspicious.
It was campy, it was fun. I noticed a note on Internet Movie Database (imdb.com=a wealth of movie and tv info) that one should look for the picture of J. Edgar Hoover hanging on the wall in one shot. And this was long before the disclosure of his transvestite escapades.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox just triggered another memory; J. Edgar Hoover. The rumors of his proclivities swirled "back then", published in any number of underground newspapers. It was good for a grin for most of us, not realizing just how much truth there was.....
longhorn said:
Actually, while I agree with both Rox and VT, I said all that to point out how stew-pud dont ask, dont tell, really is.
Maybe when no one wanted to be outed, it had some fear factor, but now, it holds much less fear.
Judo. Use their "strength" against them!
Maybe when no one wanted to be outed, it had some fear factor, but now, it holds much less fear.
Judo. Use their "strength" against them!
Danny said:
Rox,
I agree, I don't know that the draft wouldn't motivate some of them, I don't know that it would for sure. Just listening to some it seems they are in this, nothing matters to me so who cares. Which is why I interpret that is being, I'm not sure even that would.
I guess that some of my thoughts on this stem from looking at gang life. Those in the gang, don't care if they die, or who they hurt. It doesn't matter to them. At least that is the presented attitude. I had seen a similar attitude in some of my fellow classmates: whats the point, who cares, we can't do anything about it, etc. It is almost as if the thought process is "we can't" or "we don't care enough" to do something about it.
If it is the latter, which I think it is, then I'd see a draft getting people more involved. If it is the former, I don't even see a draft affecting them. Just my opinion of course.
Vaughn,
Quoting a very small part above:
"Until these thing came to be, the general college student populace went on, happy in their ignorance, going to the parties, worrying about their grades; in other words, pretty much as normal for those times."
In general, this is still true today, with the exception of worrying about their grades. The partying, ignorance, etc still exists. However, I've seen an interesting trend, students don't really care about their grades in an increasing number of cases. Almost as if they don't believe they are the owners of their education and potential for advancement in the future. As I said in my first post to this one, students are seemingly living for the moment and if something happens they'll worry about it then, not worrying to prevent or stop but just dealing with it as it comes.
Maybe that last part is if the draft comes then students will worry about the war in Iraq. I'm just not sure I'm convinced it will. For what it is worth, all of my uncles were drafted for Vietnam and they certainly did say that changed them. So perhaps from those with the experience in the matter I should listen.
I agree, I don't know that the draft wouldn't motivate some of them, I don't know that it would for sure. Just listening to some it seems they are in this, nothing matters to me so who cares. Which is why I interpret that is being, I'm not sure even that would.
I guess that some of my thoughts on this stem from looking at gang life. Those in the gang, don't care if they die, or who they hurt. It doesn't matter to them. At least that is the presented attitude. I had seen a similar attitude in some of my fellow classmates: whats the point, who cares, we can't do anything about it, etc. It is almost as if the thought process is "we can't" or "we don't care enough" to do something about it.
If it is the latter, which I think it is, then I'd see a draft getting people more involved. If it is the former, I don't even see a draft affecting them. Just my opinion of course.
Vaughn,
Quoting a very small part above:
"Until these thing came to be, the general college student populace went on, happy in their ignorance, going to the parties, worrying about their grades; in other words, pretty much as normal for those times."
In general, this is still true today, with the exception of worrying about their grades. The partying, ignorance, etc still exists. However, I've seen an interesting trend, students don't really care about their grades in an increasing number of cases. Almost as if they don't believe they are the owners of their education and potential for advancement in the future. As I said in my first post to this one, students are seemingly living for the moment and if something happens they'll worry about it then, not worrying to prevent or stop but just dealing with it as it comes.
Maybe that last part is if the draft comes then students will worry about the war in Iraq. I'm just not sure I'm convinced it will. For what it is worth, all of my uncles were drafted for Vietnam and they certainly did say that changed them. So perhaps from those with the experience in the matter I should listen.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny,
One thought on a "draft"; IF it would contain a college deferment (which, BTW, I would oppose at this stage of my life, even though I freely admit I took advantage of the same), one thing I can (almost) guarantee; the students will begin caring about their grades; big time. Well, at least enough to avoid being asked to withdraw by the Committee on Academic Standing.
Reference your comment on your uncles; I'm sure their experiences did change them. I'm not acquainted with anyone who was in the military, draftee or otherwise, whether they served in Viet Nam or other area of conflict or, as I, "flew a desk", that were not changed in some way by their time in the service.
A bit of a story about just how the whole Viet Nam experience colored the thoughts, opinions, feelings of many; one of my classmates in the first year of law school was a graduate of the Naval Academy, who had, as most who graduate from any service academy, planned on a military career. He was in the Navy for twelve years, had attained a high rank in that short period of time (based, in part, upon his service on nuclear submarines) and pitched it in at that point. While he didn't talk much about it, there were things about the Viet Nam matter he saw (even though he was in the Navy in the sub service) that he just couldn't take it any longer. There were others who were returning vets I met in undergrad school who would make vague references to similar things as being the reason they left the service, having been planning a career; but he was the first Academy man I knew that had made such a decision.
One thought on a "draft"; IF it would contain a college deferment (which, BTW, I would oppose at this stage of my life, even though I freely admit I took advantage of the same), one thing I can (almost) guarantee; the students will begin caring about their grades; big time. Well, at least enough to avoid being asked to withdraw by the Committee on Academic Standing.
Reference your comment on your uncles; I'm sure their experiences did change them. I'm not acquainted with anyone who was in the military, draftee or otherwise, whether they served in Viet Nam or other area of conflict or, as I, "flew a desk", that were not changed in some way by their time in the service.
A bit of a story about just how the whole Viet Nam experience colored the thoughts, opinions, feelings of many; one of my classmates in the first year of law school was a graduate of the Naval Academy, who had, as most who graduate from any service academy, planned on a military career. He was in the Navy for twelve years, had attained a high rank in that short period of time (based, in part, upon his service on nuclear submarines) and pitched it in at that point. While he didn't talk much about it, there were things about the Viet Nam matter he saw (even though he was in the Navy in the sub service) that he just couldn't take it any longer. There were others who were returning vets I met in undergrad school who would make vague references to similar things as being the reason they left the service, having been planning a career; but he was the first Academy man I knew that had made such a decision.
Rox said:
Ah, the apathy of youth! It's good to see that you don't fit that mold, Danny. I suspect that comes from your parents.
VT, I have a feeling we're just beginning the same cycle with returning vets. But once one or two start to speak out, others will join them. Will it make a difference as it did back then? I have no idea.
VT, I have a feeling we're just beginning the same cycle with returning vets. But once one or two start to speak out, others will join them. Will it make a difference as it did back then? I have no idea.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox, I regret to say it will not. There are many reasons for my thought, one of which is "So what? You volunteered"; another is the true lack of coverage (at least at the moment) of those who are already speaking out in what is referred to as the "MSM". There are no Walter Cronkites any more, a trusted source for many. I don't recall where I read/saw this, but the networks are not held high in credibility by many these days. Couple that with dropping viewership and dropping readership of newspapers, etc., and the ability to get the message out is limited.
An example; are you aware that there is an organization known as Iraqi Veterans Against the War? If you are, you visit some of the obscure internet sites that I do. If you aren't, well, the VVAW received a large amount of media coverage "back in the day"; seen anything about the IVAW in the media lately?
An example; are you aware that there is an organization known as Iraqi Veterans Against the War? If you are, you visit some of the obscure internet sites that I do. If you aren't, well, the VVAW received a large amount of media coverage "back in the day"; seen anything about the IVAW in the media lately?
Rox said:
Good point, VT. Yes, I'm aware of the IVAW. They aren't being heard, except by the few who truly care. Meaning the ones who want the truth and refuse to accept everything they read/hear in the "liberal" (ha ha ha) MSM. Too many bright and shiny objects?
Which reminds me of all the little things this administration has done. Starting with the 2000 election, there's been trouble and things done that shouldn't have been, yet nothing is done about it. As soon as a good discussion and some questioning gets started on one thing, something just as ugly rears its head. We can't address them all because they're too numerous and seem to piggy back each other, until we forget about the older stuff. Just goes to show how good this admin is in shoving things under the rug.
I want my country back, but I fear it'll never be the same. Not what I had hoped for my children and grandchildren.
Which reminds me of all the little things this administration has done. Starting with the 2000 election, there's been trouble and things done that shouldn't have been, yet nothing is done about it. As soon as a good discussion and some questioning gets started on one thing, something just as ugly rears its head. We can't address them all because they're too numerous and seem to piggy back each other, until we forget about the older stuff. Just goes to show how good this admin is in shoving things under the rug.
I want my country back, but I fear it'll never be the same. Not what I had hoped for my children and grandchildren.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Interesting discussion about this general topic "over there". My favorite post to this time is the one from Eagle Beak at 3:07 PM. That post has absolutely nothing to do with the draft as such, but articulately expresses my thoughts on the whole misadventures of Viet Nam and Iraq, at least that's how I read it.
Rox said:
Indeed it is interesting discussion, VT. Thanks for pointing it out. I was originally a bit taken aback by his swimming comment and questioned him. He has redeemed himself by that latest thoughtful post.
XXX must be channeling me today. He wants his country back, too. LOL
XXX must be channeling me today. He wants his country back, too. LOL
Rox said:
Danny, you still here? I have a question for you that's waaaaay off topic.
You're a computer guy. How much do you know about printers? My workhorse laserjet is clattering when I turn it on, and then it shuts off.
You're a computer guy. How much do you know about printers? My workhorse laserjet is clattering when I turn it on, and then it shuts off.
Danny said:
Rox,
Yes, I'm partially here. ;) Clattering(metallic sounding?) is usually an indication of needing cleaning. However, the turning off shortly(I assume) is probably an indication of something in need of more repair than cleaning. I've been surprised though at what cleanings can do for printers though. What model laserjet is it?
Yes, I'm partially here. ;) Clattering(metallic sounding?) is usually an indication of needing cleaning. However, the turning off shortly(I assume) is probably an indication of something in need of more repair than cleaning. I've been surprised though at what cleanings can do for printers though. What model laserjet is it?
Danny said:
I thought I'd write something else here off topic. Without going into who I think should be nominated from each party, I've noticed a bit more interest lately in people taking to Ron Paul, from friends to my parents even. I'm talking people who are staunchly conservative to the core(my parents) or absolutely "Republican" to the core(I have friends who claim they are "Arch-Conservative" though I've not a clue what that means exactly, but they don't seem to be of the Rove ilk.
My take on Mr. Paul isn't that he is Republican in the current sense, but maybe closer to Republican(or is this conservative) in the traditional sense. However, is this an indication of a candidate that people could support? To me it seems that he has the grassroots efforts working pretty well thus far, but does he have the 'end game' momentum to keep up the pressure.
Rox,
Where you suggested the ideals likely came from my parents, yes they did. They follow a conservative value which states take pride in oneself and what one has and can affect. Be an individual and earn it if you really want it. But don't blame someone else for your own faults and messes. This is how I was raised. I don't claim perfection, I claim I am me and nothing more.
My take on Mr. Paul isn't that he is Republican in the current sense, but maybe closer to Republican(or is this conservative) in the traditional sense. However, is this an indication of a candidate that people could support? To me it seems that he has the grassroots efforts working pretty well thus far, but does he have the 'end game' momentum to keep up the pressure.
Rox,
Where you suggested the ideals likely came from my parents, yes they did. They follow a conservative value which states take pride in oneself and what one has and can affect. Be an individual and earn it if you really want it. But don't blame someone else for your own faults and messes. This is how I was raised. I don't claim perfection, I claim I am me and nothing more.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox,
On the printer; Danny has likely given you the best advice. However, did you recently (i.e., right before the problem began) replace the toner cartridge? If so, have you checked to see if it is correctly "seated"? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I once did the above, and thought my trusty laser printer was going to the boneyard.
Danny, on Ron Paul; he strikes me a bit more "traditional" conservative Republican than the others; in my mind, this is why he's not going to get the nomination.
On the printer; Danny has likely given you the best advice. However, did you recently (i.e., right before the problem began) replace the toner cartridge? If so, have you checked to see if it is correctly "seated"? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I once did the above, and thought my trusty laser printer was going to the boneyard.
Danny, on Ron Paul; he strikes me a bit more "traditional" conservative Republican than the others; in my mind, this is why he's not going to get the nomination.
Danny said:
Vaughn,
I know what you are saying.
Rox,
Vaughn is right, I forgot to mention that. Because I don't own a laserjet printer myself and haven't done 'technician' work recently, I tend to forget the simple things... check to make sure everything that is user accessible is put in properly: which means toner cartridges or ink cartridges for inkjet style printers.
Another comment to make on that as well, check that the paper feeds are properly inserted and that there are no paper jams. Vaughn, got my sparkplugs firing again as a result of his comment to check the cartridges.
I know what you are saying.
Rox,
Vaughn is right, I forgot to mention that. Because I don't own a laserjet printer myself and haven't done 'technician' work recently, I tend to forget the simple things... check to make sure everything that is user accessible is put in properly: which means toner cartridges or ink cartridges for inkjet style printers.
Another comment to make on that as well, check that the paper feeds are properly inserted and that there are no paper jams. Vaughn, got my sparkplugs firing again as a result of his comment to check the cartridges.
Rox said:
Thank you, gentlemen. It clatters even when the ink cartridge is out, but I might try an old cartridge, just in case it IS a cartridge problem.
It's a plastic-type clattering. No paper jams lately, and I can't see any remnants of earlier ones, but anything is possible.
It's an HP Laserjet 1200. I've searched the HP support boards, but found nothing that really helped. I'll remove the side where the clattering is coming from tonight and see if something might have somehow gotten into the plastic gears.
I'm not jumping to replace it until I know, positively and without a doubt, that it can't be fixed. I learned that lesson with my computer in June. ;)
It's a plastic-type clattering. No paper jams lately, and I can't see any remnants of earlier ones, but anything is possible.
It's an HP Laserjet 1200. I've searched the HP support boards, but found nothing that really helped. I'll remove the side where the clattering is coming from tonight and see if something might have somehow gotten into the plastic gears.
I'm not jumping to replace it until I know, positively and without a doubt, that it can't be fixed. I learned that lesson with my computer in June. ;)
Danny said:
Rox,
After doing a little bit of research, you are not the only person who has had a similar issue with this particular noise. What I need you to do is follow the instructions on this page and let me know what the error code is:
http://tinyurl.com/377e4u
This will give me some idea of what the actual problem is. The good news is, the noise you described doesn't appear to necessarily be common, but is something that has happened to a few others.
After doing a little bit of research, you are not the only person who has had a similar issue with this particular noise. What I need you to do is follow the instructions on this page and let me know what the error code is:
http://tinyurl.com/377e4u
This will give me some idea of what the actual problem is. The good news is, the noise you described doesn't appear to necessarily be common, but is something that has happened to a few others.
Loading....