Do you favor a draft under any circumstances?

[Anarchist420]

I don't for several reasons in addition to the fact that it violates self-ownership:

It's never been to protect the U.S.

It makes worse soldiers (I've heard that only 15% of U.S. soldiers in combat shot at their opponent in WWII.)

We've never needed to wage war on a scale large enough that everyone needed to fight.

The side that has less conscripts in a war usually wins by much larger margins than they would've had they not conscripted anyway.

For example, the Revolutionary War, and in the Mex-Am War; the conscripts felt sorry for the Mexicans, aided them, and they were hanged for treason and the volunteers were really into it, while Mexico conscripted everyone.

If you spend too much on your military, then you'll lose.

 

[SlitheryDee]

If enough people don't volunteer for a country to save it in it's time of need, then it must not have been that great of a country anyway.

 

[Schadenfroh]

An all volunteer army motivated by nationalism will always be best, but sometimes that might not be enough.

 

[rpanic]

Yes, since it makes starting and continuing a war much harder since more peoples asses are on the line. If we started the draft today the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would be done.

 

[her209]

Ask Israel how it works out.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Yes, since it makes starting and continuing a war much harder since more peoples asses are on the line. If we started the draft today the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would be done.

This

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think a draft should be an option available in case of dire emergency. Also, any conscripts should only be used on home territory, they should never step foot into foreign territory.

 

[Carmen813]

Using WW2 as an example against the draft is pretty daft, as many people committed suicide for not being allowed to enlist.

I would support a draft in order for home defense. I disagree that a draft would cause wars to end quicker, on the contrary, I think it would simply lead to more wars.

 

[evident]

south korea and israel have mandatory military service. i think in SK you have to serve at least two years. I think an advantage would be for people to appreciate what the military does and maybe to get some discipline /get into shape if you're a total f-up, but i don't know about sending them into a war zone, bad stuff might happen

 

[Genx87]

I don't for several reasons in addition to the fact that it violates self-ownership:

It's never been to protect the U.S.

It makes worse soldiers (I've heard that only 15% of U.S. soldiers in combat shot at their opponent in WWII.)

We've never needed to wage war on a scale large enough that everyone needed to fight.

The side that has less conscripts in a war usually wins by much larger margins than they would've had they not conscripted anyway.

For example, the Revolutionary War, and in the Mex-Am War; the conscripts felt sorry for the Mexicans, aided them, and they were hanged for treason and the volunteers were really into it, while Mexico conscripted everyone.

If you spend too much on your military, then you'll lose.

The only time I support a draft is in a life and death struggle for the republic. WWII was the last time i can say we had a legitimate need for a draft. And that 15% is a bunch of crap. That doesnt even make sense. Unless you are saying 15% of all troops shot at somebody in the war. Which is something I could believe. As our military is structured in such a way that the majority of troops in divisions or brigades are support personel, not combat troops.

Volunteer army has been the best thing we have done to the miltary imo. Conscript vs Volunteer, volunteer always seems to win. Better trained, more motivated, and better organized. But if China somehow showed up at the door tomorrow with 2 million troops on our borders. Our volunteer army would require conscripts to fill the holes.

 

[MotF Bane]

As our country is structured, I support a draft for the defense of this country directly - which means the draft wouldn't have been used since the Civil War.

If it were not structured as such, I do not find much objectionable about the system used by Israel and several European countries.

 

[Amused]

Only for homeland defense. If any of the 50 states or US territories are attacked, and forces run low, then I will support a draft.

 

[dfuze]

I think a draft should be an option available in case of dire emergency. Also, any conscripts should only be used on home territory, they should never step foot into foreign territory.

I agree with this.

 

[Anarchist420]

The only time I support a draft is in a life and death struggle for the republic. WWII was the last time i can say we had a legitimate need for a draft. And that 15% is a bunch of crap. That doesnt even make sense. Unless you are saying 15% of all troops shot at somebody in the war. Which is something I could believe. As our military is structured in such a way that the majority of troops in divisions or brigades are support personel, not combat troops.

Volunteer army has been the best thing we have done to the miltary imo. Conscript vs Volunteer, volunteer always seems to win. Better trained, more motivated, and better organized. But if China somehow showed up at the door tomorrow with 2 million troops on our borders. Our volunteer army would require conscripts to fill the holes.

Maybe the source that said only 15% of combat troops shot at people was unreliable, I don't know.

But Genx, Schadenfroh look at this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/574
We've never needed to wage war on a large scale, never. We won't ever naturally have to wage war on a scale anywhere close to WWII.

Anyway, BurnItDwn makes a good argument about how if there is a draft, then the conscripts shouldn't have to go into foreign territory. That's pretty cruel to send your own citizens to foreign territory.

 

[nick1985]

It makes worse soldiers (I've heard that only 15% of U.S. soldiers in combat shot at their opponent in WWII.)

Horseshit.

The majority of soldiers were not combat rifleman anyway. If you honestly think only 15 out of every 100 combat riflemen were firing in combat then you are a tard.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Only for homeland defense. If any of the 50 states or US territories are attacked, and forces run low, then I will support a draft.

Agreed. I will enlist anyway if enemy forces are on U.S. soil.

 

[Genx87]

Maybe the source that said only 15% of combat troops shot at people was unreliable, I don't know.

But Genx, Schadenfroh look at this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/574
We've never needed to wage war on a large scale, never. We won't ever naturally have to wage war on a scale anywhere close to WWII.

Anyway, BurnItDwn makes a good argument about how if there is a draft, then the conscripts shouldn't have to go into foreign territory. That's pretty cruel to send your own citizens to foreign territory.

I am not entirely sure what the point of your link is supposed to convey? That we took steps to stop enabling the empire of Japan to rape and murder its way across China? Steps that we knew would most likely provoke a response? From an ideological pov WWII was a war of survival. If we stood on the sidelines there was a possibility Europe, Africa, and all of Asia\Australia falls under Fascism. That puts us on the outside looking in.

 

[SammyJr]

Yes. In the event that Congress votes for military force, I favor immediately drafting the following people to serve on the front lines:

1. Politicians who voted for the war, plus their families.
2. Executives and majority shareholders of companies who stand to financially gain from the war, plus their families.
3. Lobbyists who pushed for the war, be they corporate, nonprofit, political, or otherwise, plus their families.

 

[SammyJr]

If enough people don't volunteer for a country to save it in it's time of need, then it must not have been that great of a country anyway.

That's assuming the war was actually in the interests of the country as a whole. There hasn't been a war like that in a very long time.

 

[Babbles]

I think a draft should be an option available in case of dire emergency. Also, any conscripts should only be used on home territory, they should never step foot into foreign territory.

I would agree.

 

[soulcougher73]

I dont under any circumstance. If its a foreign war that you dont agree with why enlist. If its to defend your own country and for some reason you dont enlist then that means your own country is not worth defending in your eyes.

Basically i dont want people fighting that dont want to fight. All volunteer is the best.

 

[pcgeek11]

I don't for several reasons in addition to the fact that it violates self-ownership:

It's never been to protect the U.S.

It makes worse soldiers (I've heard that only 15% of U.S. soldiers in combat shot at their opponent in WWII.)

We've never needed to wage war on a scale large enough that everyone needed to fight.

If you spend too much on your military, then you'll lose.

What the fvck is self ownership?

These other points are complete bullshit also.

If we had not participated in WW2 you would probably be either speaking German or Japanese.

How do you define spending too much on a military. This is an opinion.

The 15% comment... well I cannot believe you even posted that crap. I've known a lot of WW2 Vets that would beat you to death with their canes for saying crap like that.

I think every able body is the USA should serve at least two years in the military and maybe we would get rid of these pvssies that think "I don't need to do anything for my country, let somebody else do it."

I retired from the USN with just over 20 years and a lot of long hard patrols during those times. I was a lost kid when I joined at 18 years old and it made a man out of me. I learned some valuable skills and have been able to do very well for myself and family. Regardless of how liberal you are this is a great country and believe me I have seen some shit hole countries during those 20 years and I would not choose to live anywhere else. We all owe for the lifestyle we have here. If you don't think so, then you need to get the fvck out.

Sorry for the rant but it is stupid to think those that are willing to give of themselves for you should do it so you don't have to.

 

[PJABBER]

I sort of like the idea of two years of national/community service being required immediately after high school or at reaching 18 years of age and achieving the age of majority/right to vote.

I think choosing military service will appeal to a certain population just as it does today. I also believe that the great majority of 18-19 year olds would benefit from two years in a disciplined environment whether it be military service or meaningful work/community service.

Coming of age traditionally has required some rite of passage, some mark of becoming a contributing adult worthy of being part of a community and a society. That has devolved in the US to a birthday party, the keys to the family car and registration for the draft. Kind of a weak sauce.

Freedom isn't free. But the cost has been masked by privilege, exemption and, in some communities, by intergenerational unemployment and in many of these same communities by an unfortunate isolation.

The 18-19 year old age group has a high rate of unemployment, few marketable job skills, a high energy rate and usually an above average idealism. A mandatory and universal two years of national service unless exempted by extraordinary physical or mental disability would do much for them.

The country has many needs that remain unmet and that could be addressed by a minimally trained work force. One example is the Gulf oil spill cleanup. Imagine having half a million teenagers available to respond.

I volunteered for military service and I would definitely prefer to serve with those who have also volunteered. It makes for a much more effective organization, particularly with the extraordinary sacrifices that service members are expected to make. Also, a two year term of service is insufficient to gain the technical skills required of all military specialties, much less achieve the appropriate level of unit level training. If someone wanted to volunteer for an additional year beyond the first two years of a national service requirement they could make a contribution in the military, and the current recruitment incentives would make it worth their while.

One additional benefit would apply. With all of the discussion of economic stimulus, the actual application of hundreds of billions of dollars of supposed stimulus has done absolutely nothing for the people of this country but raise the national debt. If we had applied those monies to public works projects and funded actual employment we would be tremendously better off and well past the malaise we remain in.

 

[SlitheryDee]

That's assuming the war was actually in the interests of the country as a whole. There hasn't been a war like that in a very long time.

I'm actually paraphrasing Heinlein there. The actual quote goes:

"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain"!

 

[Infohawk]

It's silly when people stress that the draft violates their personal freedom in all circumstances. If you don't defend your country your freedoms could simply be taken away altogether. Granted, the draft for Vietnam was a travesty.