Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

More evidence that a draft is coming if Bush wins

Mar 14, 2004 2:02AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I've thought since the 70's that the draft...
Mar 15, 2004 1:46AM PST

....should only apply to men between the ages of 30 and 50. Why send the youngest and strongest, the future of our country and the fathers of young children off to die before they've had enough of a chance to live? Another consideration is if the draft was constitutionally restricted to 30+ age group you would only see it during dire emergencies, I hope. If I had a son, I would rather let him stay home, become a father in his own right, raise a family in safety, while I who already had done that went in his stead.

- Collapse -
Re:I've thought since the 70's that the draft...
Mar 15, 2004 4:52AM PST

I guess the thinking is that a kid in his/her late teens or early 20s is in his/her physical prime, while by 30 most of us have begun that long downhill slide, LOL.

On the other hand, a lot of what makes a soldier a soldier is mental. There are a lot of situations that they have to deal with that someone in his/her 30s would be better equipped to deal with than a 20 year old would.

Can't have the best of both worlds, I guess....

- Collapse -
Re:The thing that always bothers me about discussions on the draft....
Apr 20, 2004 6:03AM PDT

and then only senators and congressmen with children should be allow to vote on education requirements, guidelines and budgets?

Or make it a requirement that only those with service could be Senators/Congressmen? they have experience in what may happen.

Or that those with service never be allowed to be Senators/Congressmen? they're too indoctrinated in brutality.

Your post is actually one of those sound great, works lousy type things, IMO.

Oh well, I may be overreacting since I never was in the military and shouldn't venture opinions about it then.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:If true, would a draft be an inherently bad thing?
Mar 15, 2004 1:02AM PST

It seems there were some such discussions back in the late 70's, of making some type of service mandatory. Military, peace corp, aides in local hospitals with basic room and board guareenteed, etc.

Of course, it never went anywhere, but there was some discussion once in a while of some type of service before you earned the right to vote or hold office. Something could be found for everyone of any capacity to do.

To some that smacked of the old poll tax or reading requirements of course, but that didn't seem to be the point of the discussions I remember. Rather the point was to earn your place in society.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
From JohnKerry.com
Mar 20, 2004 1:10AM PST
America's military is having trouble recruiting and is increasingly relying on the reserves for active duty. John Kerry believes we must change that. The complicated missions we face and technologies we use depend on it.

If our ranks continue to decrease would Kerry consider it as well?

- Collapse -
I told you so!!!
Apr 20, 2004 4:29AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re:I told you so!!!
Apr 20, 2004 4:35AM PDT

That's just plain nuts. Didn't our military planners do any planning? Is what's going on over there really such a complete surprise to them?

- Collapse -
Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 4:38AM PDT

He hasn't vomited on any foreign dignitaries, yet.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 6:05AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 6:14AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT)Chuckling, now that one I won't even act enraged at. Good play sport.
Apr 20, 2004 8:24AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 6:48AM PDT

The seduction of anyone's daughter was never done as part of a president's official duties. Kinda like Ike's golfing; at the White House, while he was president.

The vomiting was a function performed as head of state.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 8:29AM PDT
never done as part of a president's official duties.

Neither the seduction or the vomiting was such a thing.

Both were done in head of state functions.

Anything inside the Oval Office is head of state as much as some fancy pants dinner somewhere.

That said, I wasn't all that fond of the time and money wasted persuing anything they could find on Clinton. His actions were deplorable and dispicable, and a poor reflection on all us and our willingness to observe our commitmants and promises, but both sides had plenty of fault in ensuring nonsense after that.

He was nothing but a playboy total. A great charmer, but that's part of the playboy toolbox.

Oh well, past.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Re: Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 8:37AM PDT

Hi, Roger.

>>Nothing but a playboy total<<
I couldn't disagree more -- like his idol, JFK, he was a great and inspirational President with the same tragic flaw, and eye (to say the least!) for the ladies. But contrary to your claim, that was his personal life, behind closed doors, not in an official capacity. OTOH, picking on poor George for getting ill isn't terribly becoming, either -- but it sure didn't help at election time, any more than Ford's stumbling.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Not every way, Dave.
Apr 20, 2004 12:29PM PDT

You and I and everyone else knows

THERE IS NO PERSONAL LIFE INSIDE THE DOORS OF THE OVAL OFFICE.

Granted, there used to be a "gentlemen's agreement" with the press to ignore shenaigans.

I never really approved of the Kenneth Star investigations after the first few months, they couldn't prove what they wanted to (and I don't discount yet were true) but then they just had to find something no matter what.

Even so, it doesn't justify Clinton fooling around in the Oval Office. If that isn't using the impression of power, influence, importance, et al, to overwhelm someone and take advantage of them, what is? And nothing justifies lying under oath. Of course, every man that excuses this, and I heard this literally at work from many, says that any man lies about getting some.

Unfortunately, any man that cheats (note, republican, democratic, conservative, liberal, communist, fascist, any other ism you care to think of included) on his wife will probably lie and deny it hoping to cover it up.

Snort, as good or bad about anything as JFK may have been, Clinton didn't measure up to him no more than Dan Quale did.

And using the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America to get oral sex was certainly more wrong than an unfortunate episode of illness at an state dinner. Overblown as it was, it was much more egregious than picking on poor George for getting ill isn't terribly becoming, either

Clinton was an extremely charismatic person, much like a lot of religious 'leaders' that have obtain near cult like status among their followers.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
If a draft is needed ...
Apr 22, 2004 9:20PM PDT

... to fully staff our military for the threats we face, it will happen under Bush or Kerry. I think Bush is far better for military recruitment and retention than Kerry would be. My opinion only.

Evie Happy