Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Rick wrote:
I counter your proposal with one that simply states that *everyone* is
required to do a tour of duty Isreali-style. Would that be an
improvement over the current voluntary system? Or are you proposing that
only select groups of children be targeted (in your case, politicians)?
I'm not suggesting that the politician's kids be forced into anything, but
I am suggesting that someone give us a head count. I'll bet there is no
relationship between parental enthusiasm for the war and offspring
military service -- it might even be a negative correlation. I think they
are a bunch of hypocrites and I want to see the numbers.
I think two years of required military service is not a bad idea so long
as the kids of rich parents are put in grave danger of being killed (just
as much as are kids of poor parents) in case of war. That would help a
great deal. Also, military service could be good for young people and it
would mean that all people have that experience in common. On the
downside, it could slow their educations a little bit unless the military
put a lot of effort into educating the troops.
Mike
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 11:43 -0500, Mike Miller wrote:
It is good to attack pro-war writers and politicians on their service
record and on the records of their children. How many wars would we have
if the law forced all children (between ages 18 and 40, say) of
congressmen to serve in the war zone? That will never happen because
Congress makes the laws, and they make laws that suit their needs. At the
very least, I would like to see an analysis of the numbers: How many
offspring of Congressmen, Senators and Presidents serve in the military?
Of those that serve, how many have gone into a war zone?
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion