The Draft

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".

wow

More often than not, I find myself agreeing with you here at P&N, but this time I'm totally opposite on this point :

Danger of a draft that only sieves the poor/underclasses :

A leadership/upper class that engages in opportunistic wars (eg; Vietnam) for BS reasons, and because of the lack of personal connection to the bloodshed and sacrifice, they don't take the human element into consideration whatsoever. Sort of similar to the lawmakers today, they signed off on this Iraq debacle, but how many of their sons and daughters are boots on the ground for that mission?

I think any war/draft situation should have our politicians on the first wave EVERY time. I'd have liked to see GWB marching up and down the streets of Baghdad, or riding in a crap Humvee across the Sunni triangle. Something tells me he wouldn't really have the balls to do it, considering how he greased his way out of Vietnam, just like that other bozo Clinton.

:thumbsup: on all counts. Like were not already engaging in wars of avarice with the, shall we say, "those of lower birth" that enlist today..every war under Rains plan would become one and more frequently too.

Heh, that's not my "plan"...you'll notice that I'm opposed to drafting ANYONE, burger flipper or rocket scientist. My point was that if you're already embracing the dehumanizing, socialistic nature of the draft...why not go the whole distance and measure up exactly who it would be "better" to draft? If we're going to treat American citizens like cattle, at the very least we can measure and weigh them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...

Well of course it would become natural eventually, but I'm still not convinced you could force high school graduates to really take it seriously any more than you can force them to take high school seriously. We have mandatory education in this country up through 12th grade, and I'm not really convinced we've done a very good job instilling pro-education values in very many people who didn't already have them. Obviously the model is the punk kid who gets squared away by the Marines, but how much of the population does that REALLY apply to?

When that day comes that we see blood running down the gutters of our own streets, I'm sure it will be much easier to convince the kids to dream of the day that they get to sign up to help fight Islamic fanaticism. I fear that it will take weekly or daily attacks here at home before our youth wake up and remember that fighting for our country is a worthwhile goal.

My beliefs that this day will eventually occur are based in study, not in any politically motivated fear-mongering or religious predictions. I truly believe that the fight will eventually reach our shores regardless of any actions any Admin takes elsewhere in the world... I believe it's inevitable.

yes, i know, i'm a pessimist and a cynic... so be it.

 

[animalia]

not like there is gonna be one anyway. the democrats hold congress

 

[HombrePequeno]

Nope, never.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...

Well of course it would become natural eventually, but I'm still not convinced you could force high school graduates to really take it seriously any more than you can force them to take high school seriously. We have mandatory education in this country up through 12th grade, and I'm not really convinced we've done a very good job instilling pro-education values in very many people who didn't already have them. Obviously the model is the punk kid who gets squared away by the Marines, but how much of the population does that REALLY apply to?

When that day comes that we see blood running down the gutters of our own streets, I'm sure it will be much easier to convince the kids to dream of the day that they get to sign up to help fight Islamic fanaticism. I fear that it will take weekly or daily attacks here at home before our youth wake up and remember that fighting for our country is a worthwhile goal.

My beliefs that this day will eventually occur are based in study, not in any politically motivated fear-mongering or religious predictions. I truly believe that the fight will eventually reach our shores regardless of any actions any Admin takes elsewhere in the world... I believe it's inevitable.

yes, i know, i'm a pessimist and a cynic... so be it.

lol

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...

Well of course it would become natural eventually, but I'm still not convinced you could force high school graduates to really take it seriously any more than you can force them to take high school seriously. We have mandatory education in this country up through 12th grade, and I'm not really convinced we've done a very good job instilling pro-education values in very many people who didn't already have them. Obviously the model is the punk kid who gets squared away by the Marines, but how much of the population does that REALLY apply to?

When that day comes that we see blood running down the gutters of our own streets, I'm sure it will be much easier to convince the kids to dream of the day that they get to sign up to help fight Islamic fanaticism. I fear that it will take weekly or daily attacks here at home before our youth wake up and remember that fighting for our country is a worthwhile goal.

My beliefs that this day will eventually occur are based in study, not in any politically motivated fear-mongering or religious predictions. I truly believe that the fight will eventually reach our shores regardless of any actions any Admin takes elsewhere in the world... I believe it's inevitable.

yes, i know, i'm a pessimist and a cynic... so be it.

When he's ready to start fighting it sign me up. Until then what I see is a half assed prating about Islam as a ?tolerant? and ?peaceful? faith and prating about ?Jihadist extremists? meanwhile spending all his time building up an Arab state and an Arab army who hates our guts. I see him using our troops as human shields preventing the widening of those ethnic and sectarian fissures which is good for infidels. I see "the moderates" stopping by the White House and hanging with generals who only do so to manipulate the American soldiers for their own ends and Bush is too stupid to see it. i.e. To help them in their jockeying for power and for money and to keep the Americans around for as long as they are useful and they have enough to finally vanquish the Sunni. I see $500 billion already spent in this Shi'a Islamic republic excersise that could have been much better spent on energy programs that would have cut Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries of the worldwide Jihad off at the knees.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

as does Israel.

Rainsford - I meant that the "fix" would occur after a few generations of mandatory service -- it would eventually be looked at as the next natural step after High School.. for everyone. In other words, kids would know it was coming for the first 18 years of their lives, and they would therefore be mentally prepared for their eventual service.

2 years for women, 3 for men... sounds good to me! And there could be alternatives besides the military itself... peace corps? red cross? FBI? FEMA? who knows...

Well of course it would become natural eventually, but I'm still not convinced you could force high school graduates to really take it seriously any more than you can force them to take high school seriously. We have mandatory education in this country up through 12th grade, and I'm not really convinced we've done a very good job instilling pro-education values in very many people who didn't already have them. Obviously the model is the punk kid who gets squared away by the Marines, but how much of the population does that REALLY apply to?

When that day comes that we see blood running down the gutters of our own streets, I'm sure it will be much easier to convince the kids to dream of the day that they get to sign up to help fight Islamic fanaticism. I fear that it will take weekly or daily attacks here at home before our youth wake up and remember that fighting for our country is a worthwhile goal.

My beliefs that this day will eventually occur are based in study, not in any politically motivated fear-mongering or religious predictions. I truly believe that the fight will eventually reach our shores regardless of any actions any Admin takes elsewhere in the world... I believe it's inevitable.

yes, i know, i'm a pessimist and a cynic... so be it.

When he's ready to start fighting it sign me up. Until then what I see is a half assed prating about Islam as a ?tolerant? and ?peaceful? faith and prating about ?Jihadist extremists? meanwhile spending all his time building up an Arab state and an Arab army who hates our guts. I see him using our troops as human shields preventing the widening of those ethnic and sectarian fissures which is good for infidels. I see "the moderates" stopping by the White House and hanging with generals who only do so to manipulate the American soldiers for their own ends and Bush is too stupid to see it. i.e. To help them in their jockeying for power and for money and to keep the Americans around for as long as they are useful and they have enough to finally vanquish the Sunni. I see $500 billion already spent in Iraq could have been much better spent on energy programs that would have cut Saudi Arabia and other OPEC funders of the worldwide Jihad off at the knees.

Zebo FTFW!!! Single most cogent point of potential and perspective of the year so far!

Cut the endless $$$ supply off .. yeah other countries could still buy oil, but with the world's largest consumer giving them the big rubbery one, the price per barrel that those cretins recieve would plummet. And if we developed and licensed new post-oil energy tech globally, they'd truly be tossed back into the dark ages until they reformed .. win/win/win.

GJ Zeb, I don't always agree with you, but this is a massively excellent point. Cheers :beer:

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mandatory service and innate desire to serve seem pretty contradictory to me, and so far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that forcing someone to "serve" will make them have a desire to continue to do so. I think people look at the desire for service in the military and falsely assume that it's because they are in the military that they want to serve. It's really the other way around, and I don't think the idea works in reverse.

Sweden has a very professional military with high morale, and they have mandatory service :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Sweden

Sweden doesn't often attack bogus targets now does it? We have...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Zeb, I don't always agree with you, but this is a massively excellent point. Cheers :beer:

Well I truly believe Islam represents a permanent menace to the wellbeing of Infidels and our civilizations, such as they are, we will only get somewhere when Islam as an ideology is re-understood like the Europeans in the 13th Century did. When its tenets are understood by infidels. When the example of Muhammad and the life of Muhammad in every detail is understood by infidels.. When the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of Infidels is re-understood will we have the tools to address it. But putting them back in tents and divide et impera will go a long way to staving of the terror.

 

[AgentJean]

If this country was facing a real threat, like Mexico or Canada running the boarder with tanks and infanty, sure, start the draft if we need troops. Heck if Mexico or Canada declared war, you won't need to draft me, I'll volunteer to repell the invaders.

But with the current use of our military and our nation's foreign policy I can not support the draft in any shape or form.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's a form of kidnapping, slavery, and essentially murder.

A free country that is truly in danger would find no shortage of willing volunteers. Also, not having a draft makes it more difficult for the government to get involved in senseless conflicts that are devoid of national selfish interest, such as the Vietnam War. If the government cannot find enough volunteers to defend the country then perhaps it is not worth defending.

People who believe that the nation needs a draft should get off their asses and join the military. It's very easy to say that you think other people should be enslaved and sacrificed to promote your causes, it's a different thing to go stand up for them on your own.

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I support it in times we truly need it.

agree

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

I agree, it is not our job to keep them from killing each other.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Besides, the last group that wants a Draft is the military, and for very good reason.

QFT!

But there is some merit to a mandatory service option instead... such a solution may eventually re-instill an innate desire to serve the nation.

How do you define "serving the nation"?

I would define it as not allowing our young people to be doomed into fighting yesterday's war tomorrow.

I guess some people think it's ok just to send a bunch of conscripts to foreign lands and kill people. We need to ensure that our future generations continue to have the advantage in education and personal freedoms and not in having a large collection of warrior slaves.

 

[lozina]

I support a draft which in the case of an aggressive war (Vietnam, Iraq) the first to get called up are the sons and daughters of the polticians who voted for the war, and they get sent to the front lines.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yes I support it and with no exemptions under any circumstances.

That's not necessarily a good idea. You want to keep some people at home and being educated, particularly in things that would help a war effort (new technologies research, medical advancements, etc...); you never know how long a war will last, so it is important to allow some continuing education to go on to replace the aging, nondraftable population in certain fields.

I would support a draft in a time of true crisis, such as a WWII type scenario.

I agree with what you are saying, but what we can't have is the Vietnam version of the draft so that we only have the poor kids going off to fight.

Also, I'll add the caveat that this draft would only be used in a WWII type situation and not a war of choice, a la Iraq.

Why? Obviously there is the PC aspect of it, but if you're going to send SOMEONE into harms way, why pick a future rocket scientist over a future burger flipper? Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair", so why bother making a cosmetic concession that actually leaves society worse off? It's a bad thing already, I'm not sure what we gain from making it that tiny bit "better".

By the way, I'm totally against the draft under any circumstances, but if you're going to grant that the draft is acceptable, I'm not sure why it should be applied "equally".

Just because someone is in college doesn't mean they are going to make anything of their lives and someone in grad school would most likely not be the first to be called anyways. Cheney had around 5 deferments in Vietnam, that's a crock.

Not to mention that only sending poor kids would cause a disproportionate amount of black and hispanic draftees, just like in Vietnam.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "Once we've reached the point where we're going to implement the draft, we've already passed any idea of "fair"" comment.

What is unfair about gathering the necessary manpower to defend the nation?

 

[Red Dawn]

I'd never support it when we have assholes like Bush and Cheney for Leaders.