-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Draft
- Thread starter cwjerome
- Start date
Personally I think we should get rid of our offensive military capabilities and pursue strictly defensive capabilities. Of course we would keep the ability to intervene on behalf of fellow nations who request our defensive help. So in my mind I would support the draft if it was used in this scenario. But now, with all the preemptive strike zealots on capitol hill, I really think it is a bad thing when a person far and removed from the struggles of the average american's daily life can sign a sheet of paper and send hundreds if not millions of americans to their deaths.
CycloWizard
Lifer
Good question. I see two sides:
1- As chrisms said, you would hope that people would join up if there was sufficient need and sufficient cause. Basically, the size of the military should be driven by demand: a truly worthy cause of great magnitude should necessarily draw more people into the military. On the other hand, if the people don't deem a war worth fighting, they will stay out of the military at all costs.
2- The public is not always aware of the intricacies of a given situation for a variety of reasons. It could be that a just cause exists that the public is not sufficiently informed on that would require a higher demand from the military.
I think case #2 is pretty unlikely, as if it really came to that, I think the government would have no choice but to disclose what they know or face major reprisals from the population. So I guess the draft should never really be necessary, as soceity should automatically supply sufficient forces to fight any war that they deem worthy of fighting.
1- As chrisms said, you would hope that people would join up if there was sufficient need and sufficient cause. Basically, the size of the military should be driven by demand: a truly worthy cause of great magnitude should necessarily draw more people into the military. On the other hand, if the people don't deem a war worth fighting, they will stay out of the military at all costs.
2- The public is not always aware of the intricacies of a given situation for a variety of reasons. It could be that a just cause exists that the public is not sufficiently informed on that would require a higher demand from the military.
I think case #2 is pretty unlikely, as if it really came to that, I think the government would have no choice but to disclose what they know or face major reprisals from the population. So I guess the draft should never really be necessary, as soceity should automatically supply sufficient forces to fight any war that they deem worthy of fighting.
Well, it really depends on the situation in which the draft is initiated. If security at home was really threathened and we need more man power, then of course it's justified. But in today's world, a draft is not realistic. Many developed countries have a reasonably sized army, who would likely contribute if a war of WW2 magnitude broke out.
Off topic: Does a war with NK seem likely? Would China back them? How about Iran? If a war was to start against Iran, would you think other countries would contribute forces close to the size of the U.S.'?
Off topic: Does a war with NK seem likely? Would China back them? How about Iran? If a war was to start against Iran, would you think other countries would contribute forces close to the size of the U.S.'?
Wow, 6-1 against so far... I did not expect this.
qarland, IMO I don't think a war with NK is likely. It would turn regional and kill millions. The solution is massive international economic and diplomatic pressures, but it really boils down to China, NK's enabler. Iran... I can possibly see use the of force, but how much other countries contribute would be a wildcard.
qarland, IMO I don't think a war with NK is likely. It would turn regional and kill millions. The solution is massive international economic and diplomatic pressures, but it really boils down to China, NK's enabler. Iran... I can possibly see use the of force, but how much other countries contribute would be a wildcard.
buckmasterson
Senior member
It's not a good thing to do right now! Give Bush more bodys, and that's what will come home. He will not admit his mistake, and this mess is going to get worse if he's re-elected.
Hmm, the poll got a little closer. I figured more people would be for it.
I believe of all the violations of individual rights in society, the military draft has got to be one of the worst. It is an abrogation of freedom. It negates man's fundamental right -the right to life- and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and that the state my claim that life when it wants for whatever purpose it wants.
How in the heck can nations (namely European) have forced military service? That's even worse! Some country should loudly set the example... abandon conscription and required service, and maybe others will follow.
I believe of all the violations of individual rights in society, the military draft has got to be one of the worst. It is an abrogation of freedom. It negates man's fundamental right -the right to life- and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and that the state my claim that life when it wants for whatever purpose it wants.
How in the heck can nations (namely European) have forced military service? That's even worse! Some country should loudly set the example... abandon conscription and required service, and maybe others will follow.
I said no because I think the need for manpower is dwindling fast as technology progresses. When do we need lots of men? When we do idiotic policing operations like Iraq and Vietnam. Sure, there's some worthy peacekeeping missions but then we should use the combined forces of the world and in any case professionals have accomplished it in the past.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
We need a draft, it jusst hould not be abused.
This has nothing to do with Bush or neocons... either you support it or you don't, not a "sometimes" or a "maybe". I know it's hard for some, but sometimes we need to critique an idea in it's entirety, not through a narrow perspective of the partisan moment.
The draft is the final result of "greatest good for the greatest number" line of thinking... where people (often poor and minorities, like in Vietnam) are forced to give up their right to life, because it's deemed necessary to the "collective". The Supreme Court often argues that in one instance a person's liberty has been violated, then in a next case concerning the draft say that a person's liberty must be denied to "further a substantial government interest" (!) WTF is that?
People will volunteer to fight if their country is attacked or threatened- most people value their rights and freedoms. A free nation like AMerica will never lack volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. A lack of volunteers would occur for obvious reasons. If a country is so demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. Plus, when people are drafted against their will, they don't fight as well as demonstrated by the Czarist Russian Army in WWI, and American troops in Vietnam.
If government tries to fight a war for reasons other than self defense or a tremendous national security issue, it will not find many volunteers. The volunteer army is a good protection of peace... the government wouldn't be as able to embark on warlike adventures.
Would you like to be the one telling the parents' of the dead American being dragged through the streets of some African city (on national television) that he died "for a good cause"? I get so goddamn mad -and sad- when I see American troops getting shot up in some half-ass country while on some 'peacekeeping" or "humanitarian" mission. They swore to defend the Constitution of the United States, not play baby-sitter in 3rd world nations. That's breach of contract- those in charge of such decisions should be systematically fired.
The only way to defend a free country is through a volunteer army, not involuntary servitude. I'm still hoping to hear from people whose country requires slavery... ooops, I mean service.
The draft is the final result of "greatest good for the greatest number" line of thinking... where people (often poor and minorities, like in Vietnam) are forced to give up their right to life, because it's deemed necessary to the "collective". The Supreme Court often argues that in one instance a person's liberty has been violated, then in a next case concerning the draft say that a person's liberty must be denied to "further a substantial government interest" (!) WTF is that?
People will volunteer to fight if their country is attacked or threatened- most people value their rights and freedoms. A free nation like AMerica will never lack volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. A lack of volunteers would occur for obvious reasons. If a country is so demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. Plus, when people are drafted against their will, they don't fight as well as demonstrated by the Czarist Russian Army in WWI, and American troops in Vietnam.
If government tries to fight a war for reasons other than self defense or a tremendous national security issue, it will not find many volunteers. The volunteer army is a good protection of peace... the government wouldn't be as able to embark on warlike adventures.
Would you like to be the one telling the parents' of the dead American being dragged through the streets of some African city (on national television) that he died "for a good cause"? I get so goddamn mad -and sad- when I see American troops getting shot up in some half-ass country while on some 'peacekeeping" or "humanitarian" mission. They swore to defend the Constitution of the United States, not play baby-sitter in 3rd world nations. That's breach of contract- those in charge of such decisions should be systematically fired.
The only way to defend a free country is through a volunteer army, not involuntary servitude. I'm still hoping to hear from people whose country requires slavery... ooops, I mean service.
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
I carried a draft card back in the day. It didn't really matter though because I enlisted. I am not opposed to a draft in any general sense, and can actually some good coming from compulsory military service. I have thought many times in recent years when observing smartass, obnoxious teenagers, that a trip to boot camp would be an excellent attitude adjustment. Some people have mentioned WWII here. A significant problem we had at the start of that war was not having enough people trained in the military arts. A 2 year compulsory service requirement would significantly expand the pool of already trained personel should the need arise. Asking citizens for 2 years of service to support the nation they live in is not unreasonable IMHO.
When evaluating the strength of any prospective enemy, you include not only the numbers in its standing army, but ready reserve and trained militia as well. With a large number of trained people, the country would bolster its image of strength.
Many people might also aquire skills that would benefit them in the job market as well.
When evaluating the strength of any prospective enemy, you include not only the numbers in its standing army, but ready reserve and trained militia as well. With a large number of trained people, the country would bolster its image of strength.
Many people might also aquire skills that would benefit them in the job market as well.
Jack, I am a huge military fan and my family is very close to it. I believe in it, respect the hell out of it, and it does many people a lot of good. Yes it would shape up some obnoxious teenagers. Yes it would teach some skills. But should we FORCE that on someone. There are plenty of ways to support the nation, other than being in the military, especially since how much are you really supporting it if you are forced into service? That's just not the right way.
Allowing the government the ability to sacrifice people's lives without their consent is a middle-ages mentality holdover. If we are to truly stand up for freedom and liberty, something that violates the very essence of that should not be tolerated. It's like banning flag burning... why would you pass a law restricting someone's freedom to burn the very symbol of freedom... it's just oxymoron-ish. By banning flag burning, you violate the flag's symbolism. By having the draft, you violate the same principles. Once you accept the premise that government has a right to your life, it gives government the green light to do ANYTHING.
Besides, we don't have the types on manpower requirements that we needed 60 years ago or even 25 years ago.
Allowing the government the ability to sacrifice people's lives without their consent is a middle-ages mentality holdover. If we are to truly stand up for freedom and liberty, something that violates the very essence of that should not be tolerated. It's like banning flag burning... why would you pass a law restricting someone's freedom to burn the very symbol of freedom... it's just oxymoron-ish. By banning flag burning, you violate the flag's symbolism. By having the draft, you violate the same principles. Once you accept the premise that government has a right to your life, it gives government the green light to do ANYTHING.
Besides, we don't have the types on manpower requirements that we needed 60 years ago or even 25 years ago.
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
I don't believe the world has reached that level of civilization just yet.
We NEEDED the draft for Vietnam?!!! During WWII, people were lining up, because it was a righteous fight. A just war. Unlike Bush's idiotic adventure in Iraq!
Check it:
Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
With those words, written nine years ago, Robert McNamara began an extraordinary final phase of his career -- devoted to chronicling the errors, delusions and false assumptions that turned him into the chief architect and most prominent promoter of the Vietnam war.
Scccccrew that! You should be first in line for the next draft. IMO!
link
judasmachine
Diamond Member
I simply don't think that they should make warriors out of people who have no interest in killing, and terrorizing other people. I would not protect this society, this strip mall culture.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
