John Kerry on our lazy, uneducated military

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sure it is.

The job market is pretty rough for people without a college education. The military offers a lot of things they couldn't get otherwise.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

The job market is pretty rough for people without a college education. The military offers a lot of things they couldn't get otherwise.

That doesn't make what he or you said true. Lazy people are afraid of the military life.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

A lot of lower class people join the military but why is that bad and how does that make them stupid? Isn't that using the resources available to them in this country? And no one is forced into the military they could go to college instead of the military if they so choose.

The lower class is statistically/typically under educated in comparison to say, a middle or upper class person. I don't necessarily think that makes them stupid since when they do get to the military they seem to perform admirably. I do think the military is a good option because they get training and money for school when they are done, assuming they live.

I dont think it is really bad... BUT...

I am having trouble looking for a word which best describes it, but I just have a feeling in my gut that there is something wrong. It just feels to me that the poor or less fortunate are going off to fight, die, and go through a few years of hell, so the more fortunates can stay home to enjoy the freedom they themselves are not willing to go defend.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am having trouble looking for a word which best describes it, but I just have a feeling in my gut that there is something wrong. It just feels to me that the poor or less fortunate are going off to fight, die, and go through a few years of hell, so the more fortunates can stay home to enjoy the freedom they themselves are not willing to go defend.

That's how any volunteer army works. Are you advocating a draft? Because that is the only solution.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That doesn't make what he or you said true. Lazy people are afraid of the military life.

Except Kerry never said military people we lazy. He just said if you don't study and work hard (presumably in school), you'll find yourself stuck in the military. Not studying does not equal lazy. Some people just don't like to study and/or suck at it. I know plenty of people that went to college, drank too much, flunked out and then joined the military. I can only conclude that ability to make yourself into a good student does not equate with ability to be a good soldier. It was probably just a lack of discipline, which is only roughly related to laziness.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Except Kerry never said military people we lazy. He just said if you don't study and work hard (presumably in school), you'll find yourself stuck in the military. Not studying does not equal lazy. Some people just don't like to study and/or suck at it. I know plenty of people that went to college, drank too much, flunked out and then joined the military. I can only conclude that ability to make yourself into a good student does not equate with ability to be a good soldier.

Not liking to study or sucking at studying doesn't make you a hard worker. Not studying while in school and presumably not doing well to where you have to join the front lines of Iraq makes you lazy.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's how any volunteer army works. Are you advocating a draft? Because that is the only solution.

I would be comfortable with something along the lines of this...

I think it should be a combination of volunteer and draft format. I would probably set it up something similar to what smaller countries do. Since we are so big we would have to do it draft style, but when a person physically able to serve turns 18 they are randomly selected for a national guard type role. They go through the 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year training and it allows them to go about their lives like normal for the most part. They can go to college etc. I would say they need to do that for 2 years, and be eligable to be called back for 1 additional year. If their country needs them, they have a better foundation of training than a simple draft like in vietnam.

This way everyone has an equal shot, and people are also still able to volunteer for the regular army. It would also put a more accurate opinion of war because when there is a chance that your child will have to go fight, you would probably analyze something like Iraq a little more closely in regards to "do we really need to go there?".

It reminds me of the interview on hardball with McCain at Iowa state...

<matthews> who would serve in our military stand up?
<matthews> stay standing if you would join knowing you'd have to serve in Iraq

Then about 2/3rd to 3/4ths of them sat down. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. To a certain extent, i think it should be everyones duty to defend this country. I think something like that would make the people who are doing the talking actually do some walking. I suspect the talkers would start to stfu after awhile and not be so anxious and hawkish about war.

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would be comfortable with something along the lines of this...

I think it should be a combination of volunteer and draft format. I would probably set it up something similar to what smaller countries do. Since we are so big we would have to do it draft style, but when a person physically able to serve turns 18 they are randomly selected for a national guard type role. They go through the 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year training and it allows them to go about their lives like normal for the most part. They can go to college etc. I would say they need to do that for 2 years, and be eligable to be called back for 1 additional year. If their country needs them, they have a better foundation of training than a simple draft like in vietnam.

This way everyone has an equal shot, and people are also still able to volunteer for the regular army. It would also put a more accurate opinion of war because when there is a chance that your child will have to go fight, you would probably analyze something like Iraq a little more closely in regards to "do we really need to go there?".

It reminds me of the interview on hardball with McCain at Iowa state...

<matthews> who would serve in our military stand up?
<matthews> stay standing if you would join knowing you'd have to serve in Iraq

Then about 2/3rd to 3/4ths of them sat down. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. To a certain extent, i think it should be everyones duty to defend this country. I think something like that would make the people who are doing the talking actually do some walking. I suspect the talkers would start to stfu after awhile and not be so anxious and hawkish about war.

Only problem with a mandatory service is the quality of soldiers you would get, then you would have the ones that become fatasses at 17 in order to be disqualified for service. I would however advocate a mandatory civil service after high school. You could choose to work for civil goverment or military service. That way it would truly be fair to all and people would have a better foundation in some type of politics. It took me about 8 years after school to be interested in what our government does and thats with military service. If more people would be involved in the government at different levels then we would have more people that would care about what the politicians are doing.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by smokie700

Only problem with a mandatory service is the quality of soldiers you would get, then you would have the ones that become fatasses at 17 in order to be disqualified for service. I would however advocate a mandatory civil service after high school. You could choose to work for civil goverment or military service. That way it would truly be fair to all and people would have a better foundation in some type of politics. It took me about 8 years after school to be interested in what our government does and thats with military service. If more people would be involved in the government at different levels then we would have more people that would care about what the politicians are doing.

I could buy that... or draft them to become soldiers first and if they are fat asses put them in civil service. Either way we need to improve our democracy and getting people directly involved and affected by it is a sure fire step in the right direction.

It is also the reason why i think taxes should be what it takes to make the budget in balance. If that happened you'd finally see some spending cuts. We have to bring a sort of face value to things. Nobody cares until it directly affects them.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

A lot of lower class people join the military but why is that bad and how does that make them stupid? Isn't that using the resources available to them in this country? And no one is forced into the military they could go to college instead of the military if they so choose.

Joining the military to pay for college doesn't make them stupid. It only means that they came from poor public education, and don't have another option. If they are stupid, it's not because they join the military, it's because of the environment they came from.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The lower class is statistically/typically under educated in comparison to say, a middle or upper class person. I don't necessarily think that makes them stupid since when they do get to the military they seem to perform admirably. I do think the military is a good option because they get training and money for school when they are done, assuming they live.

I dont think it is really bad... BUT...

I am having trouble looking for a word which best describes it, but I just have a feeling in my gut that there is something wrong. It just feels to me that the poor or less fortunate are going off to fight, die, and go through a few years of hell, so the more fortunates can stay home to enjoy the freedom they themselves are not willing to go defend.

Why don't Presidents fight the WAR?
Why do they always send the POOR?


If the army was compiled of Congress's children and Senator's sons, different decisions would be made. Is that the feeling you have? Because it's the one I do.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not studying while in school and presumably not doing well to where you have to join the front lines of Iraq makes you lazy.

I disagree. I think being lazy means you don't work hard at anything. If a person works hard on one thing, but not on another, I don't think that person is necessarily lazy...he just, for whatever reason, doesn't like to expend a lot of energy on that one activity, but that says nothing about his willingness to work hard on other things.

wow, arguing semantics is fun!

[JaJae]

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Kerry response

"The few, the proud, the select, the brave is now the bottom of the barrel for John Kerry. This is an extraordinary comment. We had a flood of phone calls."

"I think this ends John Kerry's quest for higher office."

"You can not say what John Kerry said... if you don't study and you're not smart, you end up in Iraq."

"What John Kerry said is a disaster. For John Kerry, he'll never be president. I don't think he'll have a serious candidacy."

John McCain is going to have a press conference discussing these comments. John Kerry really hurt himself.

[ballz2wallz]

The DNC is going to need to change their shorts after today.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Why don't Presidents fight the WAR?
Why do they always send the POOR?


If the army was compiled of Congress's children and Senator's sons, different decisions would be made. Is that the feeling you have? Because it's the one I do.

We have had a few that have gone and fought, but ironically they are people who warned against standing armies (washington) and warned of allowing the military industrial complex gaining to much control of our country (eisenhower).

They send the poor because, as rumsfeld put it, you go to war with the army you have not the army you'd like to have. If a good portion of the soldiers came from broke families then well...the poor are going to go fight.

I think i read there are only 2 or 3 congressman/senators who have someone serving there. The thing is congressman and senators are rich people. Most of them have other options for their kids.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Why don't Presidents fight the WAR?
Why do they always send the POOR?

Yeah, quote an Armenian rock band

If the army was compiled of Congress's children and Senator's sons, different decisions would be made. Is that the feeling you have? Because it's the one I do.

You don't think any of Congress has family in the military?

[JaJae]

Kerry's response:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have…”

In return John McCain is scheduled to tear him a new asshole.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We have had a few that have gone and fought, but ironically they are people who warned against standing armies (washington) and warned of allowing the military industrial complex gaining to much control of our country (eisenhower).

They send the poor because, as rumsfeld put it, you go to war with the army you have not the army you'd like to have. If a good portion of the soldiers came from broke families then well...the poor are going to go fight.

I think i read there are only 2 or 3 congressman/senators who have someone serving there. The thing is congressman and senators are rich people. Most of them have other options for their kids.

Those were song lyrics. But I think they raise a good point. Sure, a couple have served, and the irony you point out of the one's that have served, have had strong opinions on standing armies and what not.

And it is only 2 or 3, out of over 500 Rich people who have their children in the military. If all of them had a child in the military, how hard do you think they would think about Military action? Just because they have other options because of their wealth, doesn't mean that the poor people they get rich off of should be the only one's fighting.


To me, that says ALOT about the character of our Country.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, quote an Armenian rock band


You don't think any of Congress has family in the military?

"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,"

There, there's an American band who asked the same essential question 35 years before Serj Tankian did.

AND FYI, All the members of SOAD are US Citizens and only of Armenian Decent.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

And it is only 2 or 3, out of over 500 Rich people who have their children in the military. If all of them had a child in the military, how hard do you think they would think about Military action? Just because they have other options because of their wealth, doesn't mean that the poor people they get rich off of should be the only one's fighting.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.

I can't believe people are attacking the wealthy to defend Kerry. It has nothing to do with his comments.