In the days of the draft, men of all races and classes made up the ranks of the services.

I don't think this is correct.  Except in countries with compulsory universal military service, the military has always been an employer of the lower classes (think Wellington's famous description of the British soldier: "The scum of the earth enlisted for drink").  During Vietnam, there were draft exemptions and all sorts of other ways for the well off or talented to avoid real service, as our last two presidents attest.  

At any rate, and to get back to the topic of your post, a huge problem of the Democratic Party is the perception people have that it is anti-military.  This costs the party a ton of votes, not just among the military, but among their families, and among people who admire the military.  Attacking the Republicans because they economically screw our service people while simultaneously waving the flag, is only a start; the problem goes much deeper.      

If you're looking for a clue as to why a lot of people think Dems are anti-military just look at your (and most of your buddies here) posts. You lump us all together as lower class, uneducated "torturers" who walk off to be sacraficed like lambs to the slaughter. Until you change your opinion of who we are and why we do what we do, you'll never get our votes (yeah... yeah... I know... but "you support the troops").

I don't think me and "my buddies" are the only people who lump people into one class.

At any rate, you paint with far too broad a brush, and there's the usual anger and exaggeration you people are prone to, but I actually agree with the general point you try to make.  Probably the only time that will ever happen.  

However ... It's only a tiny minority of Democrats who behave in the exaggerated fashion you describe.  Admittedly, they are a loud minority, but a minority they are -- one whose behavior is used by chronically dishonest folks like yourself to smear the entire party.  Most Democrats do, in fact, "support our troops."  

However ... It's only a tiny minority of Democrats who behave in the exaggerated fashion you describe.  Admittedly, they are a loud minority, but a minority they are -- one whose behavior is used by chronically dishonest folks like yourself to smear the entire party.  Most Democrats do, in fact, "support our troops."  
If that were true, the Democratic party wouldn't have the problems they do with the military vote. Your party leaders do nothing to distance themselves from those ideas for fear of upsetting the base, and some even perpetuate them (ie. Dick Durbin and his "Nazi..Pol Pot... Soviet Gulag..." speech on the floor of the Senate.

The way I see the "diversity" of the military, is I know that there are other jobs out there that those who join the military don't apply for.

So I think it is more than a situation some seem to imply that lower class young americans without a high enough GPA to get into college have no choice but to join the military.  I think this is untrue.  People choose their occupations for reasons of fit to what they are all about.  Some people are largely about adventure, largely about being physical rather than purely mental (desk jobs), and many have large interests in serving government roles and patriotism.

The government also hires a lot of people from the same backgrounds as wildfire fighters.  And I believe there are always openings for these jobs.  Perhaps not as many.  Certainly there is no recruiting office for firefighters and no ads on television.

But ads on television and recruiting offices do attract those people who inherently are more interested in adventure and patriotism.

What I do see as a problem is the insistence that the armed forces are "defending our country" - as in most cases now adays when the armed forces see real action and not just military excercises, they are defending some other country in the world cop role.  I think TV ads and the recruitment process needs to level with recruits on this and be honest about just what they are signing up for.

There is another point regarding the incentive recruitment uses to "get money for college" for recruits, free GI Bill loans for college, yet these same people could get government loans if not grants anyways if their GPA and test scores are sufficient, so I think this is a bit deceptive as well.

Therefore, I do find recruitment ads deceptive, and find fault with that.  But I don't find fault with analyzing the class of the military.  On the one hand I can agree with putting in place a lottery draft instead of using a voluntary military.  On the other hand, while this might increase the average IQ of the grunt, it will also put "nerds" for lack of a better term, and people who are not interested in adventure and patriotism, in the military, who are not a good fit for the position.  It goes against what the free market benefit of people choosing for themselves which job they will pursue.  As far as military service goes, it equates to communism, which has been proven to be inefficient.

The bottom line is, I don't think putting in place a draft is a good idea.  But I do think Democrats can consider getting recruitment ads changed, to be more honest about the world cop role that army and marine footsoldiers will be playing.  No military has ever attacked America with the exception of Pearl Harbor.  So the "defending our country" role is more excercise and less reality.  Also, I think there should be a mandate that even if the military budget has to pay for it, equal air time for TV ads should be done for other job opportunities, such as firefighter, in order to ensure those who join the military are not doing it out of lack of alternative.

In my own town, which is a ski resort, the resort is always hard pressed to find ski season employees.  So here at least there are jobs I know.  Although if you are from Kansas or even inner city Los Angeles and you've never been skiing, you might never know about such job openings, so this isn't completely fair.  Yet I tend to think there are many jobs that pay the same as the military even if you include free room and board, out there.  Whether they have benefits like the military does is doubtful.  But we know that benefits such as health coverage and pensions are a problem for many, including myself who is self employed, but without health insurance, and not making enough money to fund my own pension.

Mr Wallace, those who really care about our soldiers do not send them off to Iraq to be killed --on the basis of a lie -- in order to install a convicted felon like Chalabi as oil minister. 

Plus , if you are really in the military, you know that for every soldier killed, there are several more missing arms and legs in VA hospitals around the country. 

Those men signed up to defend this country -- not to give their lives in order to grab some oil wells for Cheney's buddies in Houston.  Or to solicit huge campaign donations from some billionaire supporters of Israel who want support for Sharon's move to grab "Greater Israel". 

People like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News anchors, Ann Coulter etc do not make fortunes by telling the people of this country the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  They get rich by promoting the lies of rich men and by diverting our attention from what's really going on.

Why support an Administration whose love for the rich and hatred for the poor has imposed such grinding poverty on much of the country that people are forced to join the Army just to survive?  

Why support a global empire in which the profits go to the wealthy few while the huge costs --in blood and in money -- are dumped onto the common citizen?   In part, by the Republicans stealing $Trillions from the federal trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, and Military Retirement.  

You can wrap a turd in the American flag --but it still stinks.

It may not be indicative that Democrats hate the military, but it is indicative of something. It's generally Democrats and liberals who are more prone to view U.S. armed forces as a malicious or harmful entity. It's generally Democrats and liberals who are more prone to take any and all accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. military as truthful. Combine that with the history of Democratic and liberal lobbying for reductions in military spending and cynical view of American military activity along with lobbying to keep recruiters from recruiting on wealthy private liberal universities and somehow people involved in the military got the strange idea that  Democrats and liberals aren't keen on the Armed services.

 
They feel closer in kinship with the GOP that screws them economically then they do with Dems that would lobby for keener military benefits based on little more than military people feel respected by the GOP and looked down upon by the Democrats.

Exactly right. And let me add that when the exemptions ran out there was always the National Guard or something. 

"The vast majority of our country would rather have a comprehensive and cheap nationalized health care system and a military half as large as it is."

 I would dearly love to see the polling data on that topic supporting your claims. You are basing that statement on statistical evidence, aren't you?

Combine that with the history of Democratic and liberal lobbying for reductions in military spending and cynical view of American military activity along with lobbying to keep recruiters from recruiting on wealthy private liberal universities and somehow people involved in the military got the strange idea that  Democrats and liberals aren't keen on the Armed services.

Again, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you, however ...

Combine that with the history of Democratic and liberal lobbying for reductions in military spending...

Bill Clinton left the military budget pretty much untouched.  Al Gore called for a higher military budget than did George Bush in 2000.  Jimmy Carter, for some reason considered "soft," increased the military budget, while Gerald Ford reduced it.  Yet the perception persists that Democrats, not just a few Democrats want to slash the military budget.

...cynical view of American military activity...

"Cynical" is in the eye of the beholder.  However, other countries, also with a volunteer military, have similar left/right breakdowns to ours, with a "dovish" left and a hawkish right.  Think the U.K. and the Labor Party, with Robin Cook, Clare Short and so on resigning in protest over Iraq, or George Galloway, who has made some pretty inflammatory statements.  Yet rank and file soldiers tend to vote left there, I believe.  What's so different?  It has to go deeper than "some Democrats" think this or that.  

As an addendum, if I were in charge (although no one's in charge since we are in a democracy), I'd have less army and marines, but keep the military budget the same size, and give pay raises to the military with the savings in a reduction of army and marines footsoldiers.

Then - when challenged by the "well we won't be able to fight two wars if we do that" rhetorid, i'd remind my opponents that any war we start such as Iraq, should be sanctioned by the united nations, and should involve NATO not just the U.S.  In which case we don't need as many troops and we don't need to bear the responsibility for as many wars, as I believe it should be a round robin as to which NATO nation battles wars, which are selected by a list.  One list for navy/air force nations, another list for army nations, the list of army nations would be longer of course as it takes a lot more technology and money to have an effective navy/air force than it does an army.

Less soldiers, but more pay to the soldiers with the savings.

I think that the point is that a couple of things happened when a broad-based draft existed. First, the country was put into war only when absolutely necessary, and it made civilian leaders accountable for the rationale for and execution of any military action.  Second, it sent its soldiers with clear instructions on what to do (on a macro and micro level), so that the stressors of being in combat zones did not lead to abuses--or rather, minimized the risks of abuses.  Our record of treating enemy POWs well in WWII saved an awful lot of American lives.  

That's not necessarily the case now.  According to this article, for example, the military's recruiting in places where people don't have a whole lot of career options.  That doesn't mean that all military personnel fit this profile.  And the civilan administration of the department of defense was raked over the coals by Colin Powell's chief of staff (hardly the shrinking left-wing violet) for the lack of clear guidelines for detainee treatment.  There's a big difference between supporting the troops, who have to follow their orders, and supporting the civilian leadership.

I'll make you a deal, I'll relook my logic skills if you check your analytical ones. No where did I ever say all Dems or most Dems when talking about what they think.

Re-read the thread.  

The reality is Republicans denounce people like Duke, instantly and loudly. While y'all give Michael Moore a box seat ticket to your convention. There in lies the differance.

Michael Moore went to the convention as a reporter for USA Today.  

But let's put that aside for a minute.  My idea of a bad human being is David Duke, a white supremacist Republican.  Your example of the opposite of David Duke is Michael Moore, a guy who makes humanistic documentaries???  Michael Moore is the best you can find to offset David Duke?  Or Pat Robertson?  Or Trent Lott?  Does Moore preach hate?  Does Moore recommend the assasination of foreign leaders?  Does Moore praise racists?  Michael Moore is the worst example you can find?  

What rational person equates Michael Moore with David Duke?  

Those men signed up to defend this country -- not to give their lives in order to grab some oil wells for Cheney's buddies in Houston.  Or to solicit huge campaign donations from some billionaire supporters of Israel who want support for Sharon's move to grab "Greater Israel". 
Ok, even you guy's have to pull this comment as either "inflamitory, or disinformation. If you want any credibility as a site that actually discusses political opinions it's time to show a little balance.

P.S. It's SFC (Sergeant First Class) SPC ( is a specialist) even a high school ROTC cadet knows the differance, and "Those men" Swore to "...obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over (them) according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help (them) God" where ever, when ever needed, and all for an unappreciative guy like you.

Were you one of the guys at Gitmo water-boarding prisoners?  Did you write some sort of official policy allowing the abuse of prisoners?

If not, then nobody here or in the United States Senate has compared you to a Nazi.

Do you understand the difference between criticizing policies which are set by ranking officers and carried out by a few people, and personally insulting every single member of the United States Armed Forces?

Oh, never mind.  You can lead a horse to water...

the guy who ordered the soldier to sodomize the prisoner with the blunt instrument, or the guy who wants the practice to stop so no more soldiers lose their souls?

That's not necessarily the case now.  According to this article, for example, the military's recruiting in places where people don't have a whole lot of career options.  That doesn't mean that all military personnel fit this profile.  And the civilan administration of the department of defense was raked over the coals by Colin Powell's chief of staff (hardly the shrinking left-wing violet) for the lack of clear guidelines for detainee treatment.  There's a big difference between supporting the troops, who have to follow their orders, and supporting the civilian leadership.
The military recruits everywhere, in every town, in every State and territory in this country. Rich or poor, if yougraduate from High school and aren't in jail you get a call from a recruiter (probably several). Oh and "the troops" don't follow orders, we follow lawful orders, there's a differance.

What do you mean "Tried to cut military health benefits?" I am retired military covered under TriCare. Last year when I went to the Doctor it was a $12 Copay. This year is it 20% plus I am suddenly getting bills from labs all over the place. 

Twenty per cent has never been less than $40 this year. Bush screwed me over really good.  And yes, my health care benefits have been sharply reduced.

I have several friends from the Army who were RIFed in the 1970's because they had service between 16 and 17 and a half years in. If they made it to 18 years, the Army had to keep them to 20 years, and pay an immediate retirement of half their base pay.

By RIFing those people the Army saved the retirement pay from the time thy would have made 20 years until the year they reached age 60 and qualified for Reserve Retirement - IF they completed 8 more years in the Reserves.

One of those people received the award for best Warrant Officer in Korea the year before he was RIFed.

Army Personnel will screw everyone over in a heart beat just to save money.

I have several friends from the Army who were RIFed in the 1970's because they had service between 16 and 17 and a half years in. If they made it to 18 years, the Army had to keep them to 20 years, and pay an immediate retirement of half their base pay.

Actually they were RIFed because the Army was overstreanth, coming out of the war full of Draftee's and needing to reduce the peace time force. Now I mean no disrespect to your friends but the RIF's aren't random, it isn't a lottery. The Army looks at records and makes decisions based upon them. Not everyone between 16 and 17 years of active duty got transfered to the reserves.

Oh, never mind.  You can lead a horse to water...

Leading a horse to water and leading a horse to a toilet are 2 different things.

What do we need that kind of spending for? How much does China, our only potential 'rival' spend?
Who needs a military anyway, it's not like China could ever pose a threat...right?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051104-111851-2539r.htm

Thanks, Oberfeldwebel Wallace, for reminding me of all the dumb fucking hillbillies, the otherwise-unemployable southern-fried idiots, who the rest of us with brains labelled "lifer morons" back when I was in the military.

Go get your head blown off in Baghdad, you Wehrmacht asshole.

Even pretending the official US military budget figures are real, China spends between a ninth and a tenth what the US does on its military. So, my suggestion that we cut the US military budget in half still has us spending 4 and a half to 5 times what China does (using official US numbers). And of course China is far far behind in military resources already in hand.

Those are absurd numbers, there is no real _military_ threat to the USA: therefore, to any reasonable patriotic US citizen, the amount the US spends on its military is obscene. We desperately need to spend that money at home, in particular on health care for the 46 million of our fellow citizens who don't have any!

By the way, other comments on my original post relied on selective and out-of-context quotation, so aren't worthy of a response.

No military has ever attacked America with the exception of Pearl Harbor.  So the "defending our country" role is more excercise and less reality.

Probably not fair to count the Revolutionary War, but we definitely were in the War of 1812 and the Civil War. 

I think that the point is that a couple of things happened when a broad-based draft existed. First, the country was put into war only when absolutely necessary, and it made civilian leaders accountable for the rationale for and execution of any military action.  Second, it sent its soldiers with clear instructions on what to do (on a macro and micro level), so that the stressors of being in combat zones did not lead to abuses--or rather, minimized the risks of abuses.  Our record of treating enemy POWs well in WWII saved an awful lot of American lives.

The draft has a very short history in this country. The first was in the Civil War, long after the war had started.  Almost all of the war was fought with volunteers.  It was really broad-based - you could hire a substitute to take your place.  Again, in WWI it was brought in after the war started.  

Roosevelt  instituted the first peacetime draft in 1940.  The WWII draft ended with the war in 1945.  Trumann brought it back in 1948 when the Cold War started and it ran until 1973. 

So, for the 229 years of our history we had a draft for 34 years.

First, the country was put into war only when absolutely necessary, and it made civilian leaders accountable for the rationale for and execution of any military action.
 
Don't know if I agree.  Is the record of "undeclared war" military action really any better with the draft (Korea, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Vietnam) than without (Phillipine Insurrection, Boxer Rebellion, Haiti, Nicaragua - 1920s, Grenada, Panama, Iraq War I, Afghanistan, Iraq War II).  That doesn't even include Nineteenth Century stuff like Jackson's seizure of Florida and ignores Indian Wars altogether.  Doesn't look like a dime's bit of difference to me.

Second, it sent its soldiers with clear instructions on what to do (on a macro and micro level), so that the stressors of being in combat zones did not lead to abuses--or rather, minimized the risks of abuses.

Do you really think the Vietnam era draft did that?  Sorry I disagree.

The following site, http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm, estimates the annual real military budget at $1 trillion a year. Modifying their assumptions about the military share of payments on the national debt (from 80% to 50%), the actual US military is over $900 billion.

Isn't that way too much?