<p>Well, at the moment those who are going to Iraq are those who signed up voluntarily for the military and received some sort of benefit for doing so, knowing full well that if a situation like Iraq should occur, they would be shipped out there. Many did not think it would happen and are very upset at the turn of events, but currently we do have an all volunteer army.</p>
<p>And if the situation should change, where this all volunteer army is inadequate to meet the challeges of the war, I imagine there will be a draft. And there is a systematic process as to who will go to war when that occurs. And I do have children that would top that list--a soon to be 18 year old, for example. He is not a child from a low income family, inner city nor is he one without enough money for college. But at the moment, most of the people that I know who are over there are either in the military voluntarily or had signed up for the National Guard. Some of them are parents, some are female, many are not children but adults who signed up for extra money without thinking this would happen.</p>
<p>I worked in a recruiting building last summer and most of the kids that go in there were like the bottom 10% in school. And hearing the phone conversations were depressing, these kids really having nothing else going for them and want to get out of where they are. I think their ads can persuade a lot of high school students with no desire to attend college (or think that the military will give them financial aid) which is why I feel this whole draft thing is balony.</p>
<p>And about the some of the recruiting ads, they can be misleading. They don't tell you everything, only the stuff they want you to hear. Some can get easily sucked into that bs.</p>
<p>I think it should be the people who volunteer to join the military; and that's EXACTLY who it is. You can't pick and choose where you want to go and where you don't: when you join the military you acquiesce to the higher powers. </p>
<p>Cherrybarry, your rhetoric is admirable. I didn't know that I had any biases against "children from low-income families, kids from the inner city, kids without enough money for college," but thanks to you, I now know that I do. Thanks cherry!</p>
<p>I never said I supported people getting killed in Iraq, but I do support the cause of the war. Would you rather be attacked in our homeland or attack the aggressors in theirs? It seems like an easy choice.</p>
<p>Someone came to my school and said something I thought was amusing and true.
When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we didn't retaliate by attacking India.
Why do people use sept 11 as an excuse to attack iraq? </p>
<p>Sorry if that was slightly off topic, just wanted to share.</p>
<p>You've been listening to John Kerry too much. Look where that got him: 3 million votes short of the presidency.</p>
<p>No one ever said that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. It's the fact that he supported terrorist organizations, and if you're going to defeat terrorism, you have to exterminate all levels. You're basically saying that if you gave money to a kid, and he bought a gun with that money you gave him, and he shot a person, you would not be held responsible? That's absurd. </p>
<p>Terrorists can't continue their malicious attacks if they aren't funded.</p>
<p>Well, although I am opposed to the war in Iraq, the analogy isn't apt because we did then go to war in Europe as well, as those countries were all allied against us, only Japan came to our soil. Bush would say that Iraq was allied with the other terrorists and therefore it is quite similar.</p>
<p>I think there is plenty of data that some kids do join the military because they are unable to have college as an alternative, and so I think the "voluntary" nature of it is somewhat questionable. I do have a really hard time imagining the Bush girls in camouflage and night vision glasses. </p>
<p>In fact, I do support the idea of universal national service. I think it would be good for our country and I would be MORE than happy to do it myself. I was a Quaker (spotty religious background to be sure, I have been a little bit of everything) in college and in fact, my work in Quaker prison reform led me to become a lawyer). So I have spent much time with conscientious objectors and I have that orientation to all wars except those related to our very survival--which I don't believe Iraq is. </p>
<p>One of the things I realize however is that by accepting the benefits of our society, we must also sometimes take the drawbacks. And sometimes I guess that includes the drawbacks of a war in which we do not believe. </p>
<p>Now: if this were Nazi Germany, and your army is out to annihilate the Jews and other ethnic groups, we are morally obligated to refuse to serve. If it is VietNam, a war where people are getting killed and maimed and we are fighting a hopeless war, are we morally obligated to opposed the draft? A slightly closer question but still I think yes. Is Iraq like that? I think that the jury is still out.</p>
<p>uc_benz...
you support the war...but would rather have others (mainly disadvantaged kids) fighting on the frontlines?
you support other causes...but would rather have other people carry them out?</p>
<p>i guess you are the type of person that has gotten everything handed to you throughout life. If so, then I'm sorry that I have disturbed your fantasy world.</p>
<p>Cherry, do you support peace between Israel and the Palestineans? Okay then, go over to the West Bank and tell the leader of Hamas that you don't like what he's doing. No really, go. Tell me how it works out for you.</p>
<p>I honestly would not object to serving in the armed forces...but only if we actually declared war. If the cause is not worth declaring war on, then it's not worth non-volunteers dying for. Otherwise, I understand that in order to have a government, sometimes it is necessary to protect it. </p>
<p>Heard a rumor: are women now eligible for the draft?</p>
<p>I am not sure why the fact that Bush's girls are not in Iraq is relevant, given who is currently there. It could be an issue if a draft is called, and they somehow get a bye. But both girls are over 18 and can choose what they want to do. I don't think they want to be in Iraq or in the armed forces, which is their choice. Just as it is a choice for my kids, and they have chosen as such. My niece and nephew thought long and hard about applying for military money for medical school and chose to take the loan route instead. My niece expects to be $160K in debt by the time she is done, and she could have tried to get that cost mitigated by doing military service after she finishes. She chose not to do so. She is not interested in going military. But if the situation comes to a point where we have a draft, and she is drafted, she will go. It is her choice. There are those who would choose not to go, I am sure, and will leave this country. That is their choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
uc_benz...
you support the war...but would rather have others (mainly disadvantaged kids) fighting on the frontlines?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is quite stunningly ridiculous. You do realize that our entire armed forces is a ALL-Volunteer service right? UC<em>benz supports the war, but under no circumstances is forced to fight. Also, under no circumstances does UC</em>Benz "prefer to sacrifice poor kids" for this cause-frankly I have no idea why you make such wild exaggerations.</p>
<p>If I may ask, do you support human rights? I;m assuming you do. So then, why don't you get your butt into Darfur, risk being blown away by the Jangaweed militia, and hand out medecine to the kids? Why are you still sitting in your comfy chair typing on College Confidential?</p>
<p>Good. Lord. We're talking about VOLUNTEER jobs, both the military and my analogy with Darfur.</p>
<p>In answer to a previous question, I think the Rangel bill, which was overwhelmingly rejected in Congress, did provide that both men and women would be drafted. Most people I have talked to say if there were a draft it would have to apply to both sexes. I believe it was the Rangel bill that ended deferments for college and many other things, so it truly would have been universal service. But as I recall, he authored/introduced it because he in fact was opposed to Iraq or something?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Vancat they aren't wild exaggerations at all. For goodness' sake look at the demographics on military recruitment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FYI, I was refering to what CherryBarry SAID, not the actual demographics of the military (which do have a higher % minorities). CherryBarry was implying that if we supported something AKA the war in Iraq, we were obligated to fight in it. That was quite ridiculous.</p>
<p>Yes, higher percentage of minorities and poor. By a LOOOONG shot. I would also like to see the demographics of the ones being killed in combat positions.</p>
<p>And no, I'm not going to fight. I am 52 years old with a bad knee, a heart murmur, and 3 children and an aging father to support. Thank you very much.</p>