Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Did you ever stop to think Rangle’s point is a good one. We should never be willing to go to war without a total commitment from the country. A draft, rationing if necessary and a commitment to wartime production.</p>

<p>We’ve failed pretty badly because the country was never asked to be serious about this commitment. Because maybe if we were asked we might think a bit longer and go “wait, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?” . Since we as a society were faced with absolutely no inconviences from a draft, shortage or cost basis, we’ve cared about as much overall as who won dancing with the stars. </p>

<p>Gw was able to take the country to war without really asking the country to commit to that war.</p>

42

<p>Conyat, bias exists everywhere; and perfect equality in all situations at all times is simply not possible. </p>

<p>You don’t get what you deserve; you get what you allow. So, if you don’t like your circumstances, stop allowing it. Working for an employer who discriminates? Why in the world would you keep doing that? Go find another employer who does NOT discriminate. </p>

<p>The cool thing about this country, you get to choose. Therefore, it might make more sense to get about the business of fixing what you think is wrong, and doing so in a positive, productive, solution oriented manner, rather than whining about it.</p>

43

<p><a href=“http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/docs.html[/url]”>http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/docs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If the information on that website is accurate, could you tell me if there are enough women in this country who will meet the physical requirements indicated to make up about half of the combat army?</p>

44

<p>Perhaps an all-women army should fight in every other war (why not if they meet the physical standards set by the military?). This will alleviate the cohesion problem that you speak of.</p>

<p>Could you cite examples of problems in the US military now because of the presence of women there?</p>

45

<p>Terrific, we really need a repeat of the 60’s…</p>

46

<p>'tis, I have absolutely no idea. Probably…but…why would the armed forces use, say, the smallest end of the spectrum, say, women who are only five feet tall, UNLESS there are no volunteer male forces to take up that role, specific to combat positions? </p>

<p>I ask because it seems to me that if you have troop of, say 20 positions (I have no idea if that’s an accurate number for a troop size or not), chances of being successful on the battlefield have got to be far greater if your 20 persons are 6’ tall and 200 pounds each, vs. 5’ tall and a far lower percentage of muscle mass.</p>

47

<p>My questions were directed to GoLani, btw, but I encourage anyone who can offer insight to say it.</p>

<p>The army must have set the requirements assuming that most of the enlistees would be male.</p>

48

<p>Latetoschool, you’re missing the point that when discrimination is institutionalized, a person is left with few options. And you’re the one who argued that no gender bias exists in the workplace, not me. But often it’s not as simple as just leaving a job.</p>

<p>My mother was only the second woman in New Orleans ever hired to be a buyer of construction materials. She had been in her job a few years (after having worked her way up from the typing pool) and was very good at it. When the company grew, they hired a man right out of college to be a buyer, no experience. When she found out he was being paid double what she was, she went and asked for a raise. They gave her a nickle an hour raise. The reason: “That man has a wife to support.” Mother had seven children and a husband who had to take early retirement due to a service-related medical problem. Yes, Mom eventually got out of there, but not right away. At that point, she wouldn’t have been able to find a better job. It wasn’t until a large company relocated to the NO area that she was able to move somewhere where she would be compensated the same as a man would.</p>

<p>I suppose you’ll claim that it was Mom’s choice, and that she should have refused to continue to work, and let us go hungry and shoeless as a matter of principle, but my position is that no one should have to make a “choice” like that.</p>

49

<p>Conyat, I do understand and sympathize with your mother’s experience.</p>

<p>But we (thankfully) are not quite living in the same world any more. And if you put this under the microscope, it’s clear to me that there were some opportunities for your mother to have taken preemptive steps, and she did not do so. </p>

<p>For example, in today’s workforce, most people know to begin cultivating and seeking out their next opportunity their very first day of work at their new job. Today’s employee has to be nimble, flexible, and adaptable to changing market conditions. Even if one has a very, very good job, awesome boss, and terrific workplace conditions, things can change in a moment’s notice, and they often do: mergers, layoffs, the wonderful boss leaves and some new, horrible boss takes over, etc. </p>

<p>In your mother’s case, she might have seen that she was in a precarious position - she had a nice career, certainly, but, it was her responsibility to understand and anticipate that anyone at any moment could make it go away - AND - she was positioned in economic space (a small, southern city with few other employment options) where recovery would not be easy - and that’s exactly what happened.</p>

<p>I’m self employed now, and successful beyond expectations, but I’m also very aware that it can disappear overnight - a new piece of legislation, a new competitor emerging in the space, loss of a large client or two, or even my own health or some other event can quickly end the gravy train. And you know what? If it ends tomorrow, I already have “plan B”, and “plan C”, and even “plan D” in place, if I need it. I know EXACTLY what I will do next, and it’s all confirmed, down to specific commitments. </p>

<p>People do have to make uncomfortable and even unfortunate choices, but, the operative word is CHOICE. I am a HUGE fan of taking personal responsibility, and I’m strictly disciplined in the belief that each of us is in whatever circumstances we’re experiencing as a direct result of the choices we’ve made, or that we’ve failed to make.</p>

50

<p>No, I don’t think anyone who claims that only women are to blame if men exhibit bias against women in the workplace, if men in political office make laws that unfairly affect women, etc., is a fan of personal responsibility. Why aren’t men responsible for their behavior?</p>

<p>The only thing that my mother could have “planned” better so as not to have experienced such blatent gender discrimination that even you acknowledge it was to have been born in a different time. The wage discrimination wasn’t a quirk of her employer or the South; it was systemic and institutionalized. And it changed because of the whining you keep condemning. If women had kept our mouths shut and blamed ourselves for not having better options, things would never have changed.</p>

<p>And for you to imply that rape victims have CHOSEN to be raped is more than a little sick. I hope you don’t really believe this, and if you are a parent, it’s not what you are teaching your children.</p>

51

<p>Well - in many circumstances, not all, I think that crime victims in general set themselves up to be victims by their behavior, and by their choices.</p>

<p>I’m teaching my child not to choose to be a victim. </p>

<p>But, we’re sort of hijacking this thread…</p>

52

<p>Well, I’m not that sorry about the hijack, since it’s brought out such an important issue. I sincerely hope you will reconsider teaching your children that rape victims ask for it by their behavior. Yes there are things we can all do to help prevent rape, and children should be taught them. </p>

<p>But it won’t do your sons much good to give them such a distorted view of women. And rape victims experience tremendous guilt and shame; some even commit suicide because they blame themselves or are afraid to face family and friends. Do you really want to add your disapproval to the burden that one of your daughters will bear if she’s a victim of rape?</p>

<p>To get back on topic, I’m not entirely sure that having a bulkier body is an advantage in every combat situation. What about situations where quiet and stealth are at a premium, or situations where the combatant has to be able to manuever in a tight space or hide behind objects? I doubt that a smaller, lighter body is an obstacle to being a fighter pilot; the Air Force takes them as short as 5’2" and no taller than 6’2". At 5’10-1/2", John Glenn was among the tallest of the fighter pilots-turned astronauts.</p>

53

<p>Conyat, what if a girl seduces a man (by wearing nothing around him) to have sex with her with the deliberate intent to get him in trouble? She gently says no, but the man proceeds to have sex with her anyway? The man is therefore subject to rape allegations, isn’t he? Let’s say this incident took place in a recording studio and everything was recorded.</p>

<p>What would you say to the girl and to the man?</p>

54

<p>Conyat, I do not have any sons, although, I wish I did, because from the other posts here they sound like a riotous amount of fun. </p>

<p>My daughter has been raised to take personal responsibility in all matters, and to not blame others for unsatisfactory results in both personal and business relationships. Obviously, she has also received intensive instruction and education regards paying close attention to economic, political, and societal realities. </p>

<p>As to the original purpose of the thread, should my daughter, my most precious treasure, ever end up in military service, either by voluntary enlistment or by draft, I will sleep MUCH better at night knowing her service will exponentially improve our chances of winning whatever conflict we’re engaged in, wherever in the world it happens to be. :)</p>

55

<p>'Tisthetruth, the scenario you describe is pretty farfetched and very far from LTS’s characterization of rape victims as recalcitrant prostitutes if they’ve dressed in a matter he or she considers provocative. This is a totally different situation, since you’re claiming that from the outset the woman in your scenario had a conscious intention to have sex with that person at that place and time, and then claim that she didn’t. </p>

<p>I would suspect that in most jurisdictions the law says that no means no. Some people are very poor judges of what behaviors mean that someone “wants” them. If there is any doubt or ambiguity whatsoever that a person wants to have sex with you, you should stop what you are doing and clarify it. Why would you take a chance on forcing someone against his or her will if you’ve gotten your signals crossed?</p>

<p>LTS, I hope you’re just caught up in the heat of argument and really aren’t raising your daughter to believe that it’s her fault if she’s raped.</p>

<p>And you’ll forgive me if I think that, given your earlier statement that any woman who is passed over for promotion must be less deserving, you aren’t really the best source of information about “social realities.” The social reality is that discrimination exists; it’s getting better, but it’s still wrong. Insisting that if people are treated unequally it’s because they are inferior isn’t social reality, it’s social stereotyping.</p>

56

<p>The loopy left can’t seem to make up its mind about the military. Rangel wants everyone to experience it via a draft. The San Francisco School Board wants no one to experience it:
<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/y4u3r7[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/y4u3r7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

57

<p>The entire point about a draft, horrifying as I would find it (because contrary to LTS, I would not sleep well at all at night, thinking of my own child on the front lines in an unwinnable war… seems kind of suicidal), our country has to decide if this “War on Terror” is worth the collective sacrifice.</p>

<p>The only way we will know is to put it to a draft. It isn’t to “punish the Bush administration”, but it is to determine, by public opinion, whether this is a conflict worth the blood and treasure we have already spent, and will continue to spend. It’s easier to turn away when it is other people’s children, poor and rural ones mostly, who are dying.</p>

<p>If all parents had to give their children for this war, would they still support it?</p>

58

<p>His thinking is a wonderful grasp of logic.</p>

<p>if we have the ability to conscript instead of reying on volunteers, it will prevent wars. What a moron!</p>

59

<p>It’s great logic. If the President signs the draft bill (which he won’t, for the reasons below), it will be:</p>

<p>1) An admission of failure – tactical mistakes were made in the initial stages of the Iraq operation, and now Bush must follow one of the Pentagon’s recommendations, “Go Big.”</p>

<p>2) Disastrous for any 2008 GOP Candidate – the Democrats will be able to turn it around on the President. Even though it IS Mr. Rangel who is proposing the bill, a Republican will be signing it – probably won’t happen.</p>

<p>3) Ceding ground to the Democrats on Iraq – after calling the Democrats weak on national security and accusing them of “coddling terrorists,” the Republicans have been stubborn about ceding ground on national security/Iraq to the Democrats. Bush is no different. To sign the draft bill would be an admission of Democratic adroitness.</p>

60

<p>No way it gets passed. </p>

<p>I think its more likely an opening salvo in a back-door strategy to attempt to set up some type of mandatory national peace corps or other civililan conscription.</p>