Would * draft the parents of young children?

[MoonRiver]

This has been on my mind a lot. I cannot believe that that the * thugs could get away with tearing American families apart and traumatizing thousands of small children. But, then again, the horror we've witnessed under this regime never ceases to amaze. Who knows how bad it will become, if the unspeakable occurs and * gets another 4.

[bobbieinok]

1. anyone and everyone except rich repug kids

[central scrutinizer]

2. of course

One of the first casualties in Iraq was a single mother with two small children from a small Hopi town in rural Arizona. The town was dirt poor and enlisting was the only way this woman could care for her family. No hardship or family deferment for her.

[MoonRiver]

8. But wasn't she part of the volunteer army?

Surely at least one parent would be allowed a deferement to care for the kids. And what would happen to a single mom or dad who had no family or friends to care for her/his small children? Looks like Repukes only extend the notion of "family values" to the rich. All others are slaves of the war lords.

[markomalley]

13. The way the rules were up until

a few years ago were that if both parents were in the military they had to have a written plan for what to do with the kids. The same happened if a GI enslaved (married) a foreign woman/ man who didn't speak the language, was disabled, or otherwise unable to care for herself/ himself, etc.

Usually, the "dependents" would get shoved off to grandparents or to other relatives...powers of attorney had to be already written and signed, etc., in advance of going.

[markomalley]

3. Of course he would...

...but in honesty, so did Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson (as well as Ike and Nixon). The only ones who ever get away with it are those who have the personal integrity to flee the country or those who have parents rich enough to keep them in school. The lower classes always fight the rich man's war...that is party independent.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Roosevelt, Truman, etc...

...never entertained the idea of drafting women. And I'm unclear on whether single male fathers were drafted during those eras, but there were standards for "hardship" deferment in place at the time that would seem to cover this situation.

The is an entirely new situation and raises entirely new questions. The current rules in place are for people who volunteered.

We're talking about drafting *both* parents.

[MoonRiver]

19. And that really is my question.

Would the * dogs of war draft BOTH parents, and leave young American children at great risk of becoming orphans???

[RoyGBiv]

20. I put nothing past this administration...

And, honestly, I've not seen this even mentioned. But the troubling thing is that I've seen a lot of discussion about severely limiting the definition "hardship" that in previous eras would be perfectly legitimate and not the subject of much controversy.

It's a trite but true criticism. This administration and its ideological allies care far more about the unborn than they do they born. Save the fetuses ... forget the children. The Republican record on caring for children leaves me believing they simply wouldn't see this as a problem.

[markomalley]

22. They also never considered allowing women in the military either

except for certain very limited roles. The world has changed. Women are now doing everything men did in the military except for a handful of MOS's. Again, if women can serve as volunteers, why not as draftees? (This is assuming we have a real president in office, not for the current situation)

As far as both parents, well...that wasn't how it was initially asked. But, I would think if the situation was grave enough...we might have to put the entire country under arms.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Missing the point...

The question here is not whether women should serve as draftees, and your raising that as a question is missing the point, or better stated, deflecting the point. You suggested that "to be fair" Roosevelt, Truman, et al drafted the parents of children. Certainly the draft during those times included parents.

The original question may not have stated directly anything about "both parents," but the context of the current debate over the draft combined with the question's wording should have indicated this as the possibility under review. Certainly that's the way I took the question, and "saywhat" later clarified that this was the real question being asked.

As for putting the entire country under arms, I am having a great deal of trouble thinking of a situation that would require that unless we allow our government to continue to involve us in illegal wars across the globe. The Bush Doctrine may require it, but I will argue with my last breath that this doctrine is both immoral and illegal, and I will not follow those orders.

[MoonRiver]

24. Thank you for this summary.

The real issue is what will happen to children left as virtual orphans if both parents are drafted to be cannon fodder for *'s imperialistic wars.

[markomalley]

25. I don't in any way disagree with you...

...but that is not an issue that has come up under only the rethugs in the past. We have to be careful who, of either party, is allowed to control the WH -- unfortunately, our party has its own pretty terrible historical record of imperialism, as well. Yes, Nixon is currently slow-roasting over his little flame in hell right now paying for the lives he cost in Vietnam, but he is not the only one. That is my point.

No, I am not suggesting for a minute that the shrub's foreign policy is in any way moral...I think I've made that point in the past...but, we need to be exceptionally careful who gets in office, regardless of party, or the result could end up being the same. Personally, that's why I think that Kucinich would have been a far better President than either party's nominee.

[RoyGBiv]

27. I agree with that for the most part...

Perhaps my earlier remarks were a bit too confrontational. I have a bad habit of that sometimes. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Certainly Democrats are not immune from imperialistic tendencies nor from playing fast and loose with the Constitution at various times. Some of the things Roosevelt did are highly questionable, for example, and Wilson's record on imperialism is just horrid. (Personally, I blame Wilson for Vietnam.) But I barely consider Wilson a Democrat in the modern sense.

I agree with your thoughts on Kucinich in theory. Largely due to where I live, however, I'm too mired in the world of practical politics to have much hope for someone like him gaining the White House any time soon. To play off the phrase, I don't think the country as a whole is ready for that much change.

[Speck Tater]

4. Depends on whether said parents can afford to buy their way out

with generous contributions to the emperor's treasury.

[Lavalamp]

5. What do you think war is?

These people are starting wars, or haven't you noticed? War is not a picnic.

Families have already been torn apart, and more are being torn apart every day we are in Iraq. Guess what? They got away with it. Just because it hasn't been your family doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet. It's been happening for a bloody long time already.

Will others have to pay the price for this war in a draft? Probably. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

[loudsue]

6. I've wondered the same thing....

My closest young'uns are all young parents. If the "draft age" is all the way up to 35 yrs. old, that includes a lot of young parents. Would they let the families decide which parent goes & which stays? Or would that be too much "family values" for even the repugs?

Mark my words: This draft thing goes through, and bush is finished, and will take a lot of repugs with him. The focus will be TOTALLY on the value of the Iraq war, and WHY we're there, and HOW WE GOT THERE!

Guess where THAT buck stops???

:kick:

[bloom]

7. I was thinking this afternoon

that as a woman, I would rather be drafted now that my children have grown up than I would when my children were small or before they were born.

I would be a conscientious objector either way - but if there were no way out of it (of course I could always kill myself, or other things, but just theoretically) - I would rather go now.

[bigwillq]

9. The answer is yes

OF course

[Guaranteed]

10. They did it in WWII. And Vietnam.

Don't see why anything would change now.

[doni_georgia]

11. of course he would! I see no deferrment listed for being a parent - but

wouldn't it be rich if he gave one for stay-at-home moms, since we all know that is what *good* women do (not bashing those of you who choose to stay home).

[atreides1]

16. There Is None

The deferment for paternity was revoked by Executive Order 11527, on
4-23-70, by President Richard M. Nixon. This same order also affected the marriage deferment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yes, we need bodies

it is time for you to serve... no exceptions

[bloom]

14. We need dead bodies???...n/t

[Warpy]

15. Reservist single parents

...are being shipped out right now. They have to scramble to find somebody who can take the kid while they're gone. I know two who have gone overseas and have had to ship kids off to grandparents, hard on the children and hard on the grandparents, just because Chimp is desperate for bodies to send to his disaster in Iraq.

Chimp and his gang don't care about working class parents or their children. They will take parents as quickly as anyone else.

[MoonRiver]

17. This may or may not be a small point,

but reservists voluntarily signed on. Maybe they didn't imagine the current nightmare scenario, but they knew there was a possibility of serving in wartime. A draft is an entirely different matter. We're talking about abruptly tearing parents from young children. Many of these parents will not want to go!! The backlash is going to be enormous. There is NO rage stronger than a mother forced to abandon her babies. Many fathers also feel this instinct.

[PsN2Wind]

21. Hey, I would

We are all in this together, no dodges. If this bunch is re-selected and a draft is initiated, I don't want to see the VietNam thing. You know, we'll exclude this bunch and then these etc. If we start down that exclusion route. pretty soon the Cheneys, Wolfies, et al are leading cheers from the "home front" and guys like me are up for the draft.

[ComerPerro]

26. Why wouldn't he?