• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some thoughts on the draft...

Suddenly

Unregistered
S
I was looking over the online version of the latest issue of "Time," which is available on CNN.com, and I noticed an article that asked whether the draft should be reinstated. There were a bunch of short position statements from various people.

In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members. Plus I was drafted and it taught me some discipline. Maybe if these kids had to serve we wouldn't have all this crime, drugs, rap music, baggy clothes and that other stuff that bothers me because I'm old, cranky and bitter and just don't understand the kids these days.

So, it seems there are those that want to weaken the U.S. armed forces in the name of social engineering. These people also seem to be the same people that went apesh*t over Clinton's gays in the military policy, not because they are a bunch of homophobes you see, rather because the purpose of the military is to fight and anything that threatens that in the name of social change is just wrong and evil and what we would expect from a pot smoking kremlin loving draft dodger whose wife dictates his every move....

Just seems odd. I wonder how many people we can scrape up that were for the draft and for accepting gays. I understand there is a sizable minority that were against both, but I'd guess not a whole lot for both.

I would like to hear a justification against gays but for the draft that isn't based on dislike of homosexuals, either on the part of the person arguing or implied in others. Can't really come up with one myself.
 
Suddenly said:
In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members.
Click to expand...

I think these people, don't match the description you give. Are there more views of others elsewhere?

There is one liberal politician and one conservative politician who support the draft. You might consider Doug Bandow a conservative politician, certainly a former political operator, but he opposes it.

I think you'll find that support for the draft is miniscule in Congress without respect to conservative/liberal.
 
They woouldnt use the draft until afte the election. Its political suicide. In fact thats whatteh demos should harp on. Vote Bush and little Jonny might end up on the front line.
 
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.
 
Suddenly said:

The other half were politicians (mostly conservative) that said they favored it as a draft made the army more diverse in the socio-economic backgrounds of it's members. Plus I was drafted and it taught me some discipline. Maybe if these kids had to serve we wouldn't have all this crime, drugs, rap music, baggy clothes and that other stuff that bothers me because I'm old, cranky and bitter and just don't understand the kids these days.
Click to expand...

LOL, don't count in it :D
 
Ed said:
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.
Click to expand...

Why? I think Itd be expensive. Not to mention that I'd play havoc with the young workforce and student poplulation.

Why not just give everyone 2 free years of college.
 
I guess I'm one of those "Please don't, our military works so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it" military people.

I don't even see why anyone is even considering a draft. We have enough troops for the current situation. If a war breaks out with China or something, then maybe a draft.

Even some of the people who volunteered to be in the military are whining right now. They thought they would just collect an extra paycheck and some other benefits each month. They didn't expect to actually have to earn it. Oops.

Our troops are stretched pretty thin. They are away from home longer than usual, and that really sucks. But I don't think it has reached the point that we need a draft.

Re-enlistment rates should tell the real story of whether or not things are as bad as the media would like us to believe.

As for gays in the military, I have not made it a secret that I am against it. There are privacy issues that come into play. I am sure that a company of women wouldn't want a male living, sleeping and showering with them 24 hours a day. Why should hetero men have to live with a gay male? And why would a gay man (or woman, for that matter) want to put him/herself through that kind of torture? I mean, if I was living with 200 women in close quarters on a ship for six months, and showering with them, I'd lose my ever lovin' mind!

It was a rumor around the Navy that when Bill Clinton visited an aircraft carrier and saw what the actual berthing accomodations were like, he began to back off on his insistence of allowing gays in the military. Don't know if that is true or not.
 
Ed said:
I think some sort of national service is a pretty good idea.
Click to expand...

We have a national "civilian service" ("Zivildienst") of draftees as an alternative to military service here in Germany. I chose that, too, by the way.

It works very well. As far as care for old people and care for the disabled is concerned (except the purely medical care), the system would instantly collapse without the "Zivis". (They cost a fraction of what qualified full-time personnel would cost, and for what they do, their training is adequate)

Incidentally, it works wonders for making people better citizens, too. I´ve known two people who had been @ssholes when I was at school with them who had become sensible, caring young men through having to care for old/disabled people.
 
Originally posted by a_unique_person:
You seem to think it is a good idea to teach all and sundry how to use arms and kill. It is also a good way to increase crime.
Click to expand...

What about Switzerland? A nation armed to the teeth, where everly adult male is part of the national militia, and one of the safest socieities on earth.
 
a_unique_person said:


You seem to think it is a good idea to teach all and sundry how to use arms and kill. It is also a good way to increase crime.
Click to expand...
\

Reference to where I said that. Explination of how national service equates to crime.
 
Manditory Service?

I personally don't like the idea of a draft or manditory service as a blanket policy (exceptions will follow).

Drafts and manditory service puts too much power in the hands of the government regarding our personal freedom to choose what we want to do with our bodies. If standing in front of moving bullets is not on my list of career choices, why should the government be able to say "Too bad, get out there!"?

Consider how we'd feel if some representatives from the government showed up at our doors and said "You have to come with us, the new highway project needs more laborers. It should only take three or four years to complete."

Consider further if your personal safety were at risk. Would you like to have police patrolling your neighborhood if they didn't want to be police and really didn't care about the law or your life?
Or if you were the cop, would you want a drafted partner who was forced into the uniform? Would you feel comfortable having him as back-up in any situation?

Would you like to click on CNN and see our massive armies marching across the battlefield, only to duck, cover, and run when the first shot is fired? Personally, I prefer national security to be in the hands of people who want to be there.

Sure, these are all just a bunch of "What if?" scenarios, but consider the full results of what manditory service would have before deciding what you'd like your government to do.

Something to consider is that the government actually does have a better program than manditory service; the National Guard.

What the military already does is pays college students for service. You can go to school for free, and all it takes is one weekend a month and two weeks for the summer. You really can't get a better deal than that, but guess what? Not every student does it!. There are hundreds of thousands of students out there who have been approached with the National Guard education package and have turned it down! Think about it, four years of free school, and all you have to do is show up one weekend a month and pretend to be a soldier.

People would rather work part time all month, scrape by on living expenses, run themselves ragged all month long balancing work with school, go into debt to keep their tuition paid, and spend years after graduation working to pay their student loans back!

People who are that adamant about not joining the military should most certainly not be forced into the military under any circumstances short full-scale invasion of conus.

Now, there are some circumstances where forced service could be good. Our prisons are crowded with people who have made stupid mistakes which have caused them to be removed from society briefly. When they get done their sentances, they will have criminal records, they will have fallen a few years behind on their careers, and they will have been exposed to a society that will most likely change them for the worse. Once they get out, they will be severely limited in their career choices.

For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.
 
Re: Manditory Service?

ArmchairPhysicist said:


For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what happens in some places on an informal basis. My only problem with making it formal is that it could make people suspicious of those with a military background or even those in the service, i.e. " and why were you in the Army? Hmm?"

I support "boot camp" type programs for young first-time offenders; we have a system here that I think quite reasonable. Perhaps a special program along those lines with a emphesis on public service, one that is very strict and difficult to complete successfully...
 
from Suddenly:
In general, about half were military professionals saying more or less: "Please don't, our military words so well now that we got the whiners and losers out and the only people in it want to be in it."
Click to expand...
After WW2 Britain continued conscription as National Service, which meant service in the Armed Forces. This continued until about 1954, as I recall, and was mostly prompted by the die-hard imperialist tendencies within government. The military were overwhelmingly opposed to the whole thing, since money that was being spent on training, feeding and housing unwilling teenagers for two years could be better spent on people who actually wanted to be there. That attitude triumphed, and Britain now has a system of professionals and Territorials (similar to the US reservists and National Guards). I'm not at all surprised that the US military would rather have the money spent on attracting willing recruits, full- and part-time.
 
Re: Manditory Service?

ArmchairPhysicist said:

For certain crimes and certain sentances, we could instead offer military service as an alternative. Two years for transporting controlled substances? How about four years in the Army?At the very least, he'll come out with skills to make a living legally, and maybe a sense of responsibility. Three years for burglery? Four years in the infantry should straighten him out.

Sure, the system would need more detail than that, but you get the idea. These people would be in the military instead of being in jail, so they would have a bit more motivation to be successful. Failure would put them back in prison where they don't want to be.

Just a few thoughts.
Click to expand...

So you think forcing people to join the military would be dangerous, but it would be okay to put criminals in the military? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, that's what I want. A thief on my ship. Sure. :rolleyes:

edited to add: I wonder why they stopped that practice...

Yeah. I wonder.
 
a_unique_person said:


I believe it was drug addled ex-bomber crews who founded the Hells Angels after WWII, for example.
Click to expand...

I wish I had that laughing dog graphic someone else uses right now...
 
Luke T. said:


I wish I had that laughing dog graphic someone else uses right now...
Click to expand...

Everybody has it... just click the "get more" over to the left.

Watch:

:dl:

Woo hoo!

I read Hunter Thompson's book about the Hell's Angels. My memory may suck but I seem to recall War Veterans playing some part, but nothing so specific as old bomber crews.
 
Suddenly said:


Everybody has it... just click the "get more" over to the left.

Watch:

:dl:

Woo hoo!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I read Hunter Thompson's book about the Hell's Angels. My memory may suck but I seem to recall War Veterans playing some part, but nothing so specific as old bomber crews.
Click to expand...

I think Thompson's book was written well after the Hell's Angels became an outlaw motorcycle gang. He spent a year with them, I believe.

Why I laughed so hard at AUP's description is because it betrays his bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom