[P1] self-quotes

[George Slusher]

Two points:

1) For Jack: Reading the "quote," it appears to be signed by yourself, 
IOW, the words are your own. I expect that was what Dave meant. Many 
people include some sort of quotation as part of their signature. (There 
are programs/scripts to rotate the quote from a selected list.) Usually, 
those quotations are from some famous and/or historical figure, like 
Albert Einstein, Franklin Roosevelt, etc. 

2) for Dave, re:

>Actually, many people calling for action to deal with Saddam over the 
>past 15 years or fewer years *are* or were enlisted or have family 
>members who are enlisted. Many have specifically enlisted over the last 
>15 months. I know one personally. 20+ years? What a meaningless and 
>convenient number you choose in your "quote". You need a history lesson 
>on the Bath movement. Where do you get your misinformation?

This is way off-topic for this list, but I don't think that Jack was 
referring to "ordinary" people like us or folks we know, but to political 
leaders and their advisors/cronies, in two ways. First, many (including 
most of those closest to Bush) have not served in the military at all, 
much less in combat. (You can always find a few exceptions, but, many of 
those, like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell have advised extreme caution 
with respect to invading Iraq, as have most retired generals and admirals 
who have spoken on the subject.) Several magazines have labeled these 
leaders as "chicken hawks," with obvious intimations.

BTW, don't point to ACTIVE military as examples of those who "support" an 
invasion. They CANNOT do or say otherwise. No active officer, especially 
a senior officer, can publicly criticize the President or other political 
leaders. (It's risky to do so even in private, as what was meant to be 
private can become public in an instant.) The oath the Joint Chiefs and 
other senior officers (indeed, all officers and enlisted persons) take 
requires that they support & implement whatever the President and the 
Secretary of Defense say or decide, even if they believe that the 
orders/decisions are unwise.

Beyond personal service, though, the question is whether the _children_ 
(or nephews, nieces, grandchildren, etc.) of these leaders are enlisted 
people in the armed forces or even officers in combat arms units? Friday 
morning, Congressman Charles Rangel was on an NPR program to explain a 
bill he is introducing to reinstate the draft. In his bill, the draft 
would apply to everyone--men and women, regardless of religion, physical 
condition, etc. Those who could not serve in the active armed forces for 
religious or physical reasons would serve in other public service roles 
in the schools, hospitals, etc. Congressman Rangel said that he had asked 
many of his colleagues if they had children or close relatives who were 
enlisted or in combat units--none did. That's not surprising, as the 
military is no longer considered a desirable job/career for people who 
are well-off, well-educated, well-connected, etc. (At least one prominent 
conservative "talking head" reportedly said that someone would have to be 
stupid to join the military.) Indeed, the military has been promoted as a 
way for those who don't have the advantages of wealth, education, or 
connections, to get ahead.

FWIW, I would go further than Rep. Rangel. Without going into details, 
I'd like to see the children (or nephews, nieces, grandchildren) of 
appropriate age of all elected and high appointed federal officials 
immediately drafted when their parent takes office. They would go through 
basic training, then be assigned to reserve units. If a war came while 
their parent was in office, they would be immediately called up and 
assigned to units that would be in the first wave of an invasion. (The 
children of members of Congress who vote AGAINST a war would be called 
up, but would go to support units in the field, rather than combat 
units.) If we have a draft, I'd favor a form of "affirmative action" that 
would increase a person's chances of being drafted if (1) she were female 
and/or (2) he/she was from a wealthy or politically-well-connected 
family, since these classes of people did not have "equal opportunity" in 
the past versions of the draft.

To me, this is only fair. For many years, the burden of military service 
has fallen disproportionately on the poor, uneducated, and 
minorities--those with the least power. It would also personalize the war 
decision for the President and Congress. I wonder if GW would be as 
anxious to invade Iraq if he knew that his twins would be infantry 
privates in the first landing party?



George Slusher, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
gslusher at rio.com


>On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 05:18  PM, Dave Meilstrup wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 02:26  PM, Jack Rodgers quoted:
>>
>>> People you won't see enlisting for the war on Iraq: those who have 
>>> been calling for such a war for the past 20+ years or any of their 
>>> friends and relatives.
>>> Jack Rodgers
>>
>> You quote yourself? Why? Are you a historical figure or even a person 
>> of note?
>
>Ah, the misrepresenter... When did I quote myself. It looks like you 
>are the one who is doing the quoting. Why would you say that I did this?
>
>Are you such a person of note or a historical figure that your 
>misrepresentation becomes so important?
>
>Smile...
>
>---
>People you won't see enlisting for the war on Iraq: those who have been 
>calling for such a war for the past 20+ years or any of their friends 
>and relatives.
>Jack Rodgers