0
   

Bring back draft

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 11:40 am
I have to give my support to anon. I think in times such as these, we have got to be selective in how we serve our country. We can't just 'go along' with the govrnment's desired policies without making certain what we are getting into. Far easier to avoid entering the trap than to escape once it is sprung.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 11:51 am
Asherman



Reserves bring with them the fundamental training, skill, and experience to bring our forces to a better state of preparedness. Draftees are useful as basic riflemen in the straight-leg infantry, but that isn't where the most pressing needs are.

I totally disagree with this assessment.
Reservists unless they have been in the service or have a particular skill are poorly trained. Draftees on the other hand who spend a year or two in the service will be well trained when called upon.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 12:35 pm
Anon and edgar

Permission is granted for you to put down your "I Very Happy the Pentagon!" banners because blatham and Phoenix said you ought to be waving them madly.

What we pointed to was not a political opinion, but to the logical error inherent in any generalization - that's all.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 12:47 pm
blatham wrote:
We've gone a touch off topic here, but it seems quite understandable, for though we folks have varying notions about military service, we are clearly quite in unison as regards our affinity and respect for the chap in question.

Pat Moynihan, in answering a similar argument about entry into politics, said, "If the smart and good people don't go in, then we are destined to be ruled by mediocrities".



If we could push that thought a little further... "If the normal citizen doesn't go in, then we are destined to be ruled by the abnormal."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 12:58 pm
In response to the original question, "yes" is my answer. Why? Because this countries youth have lost sight of patriotism, and many do not understand discipline. They know how to complain about their country which is a birthright, but they understand little of what makes this country great. They have the right to burn our country's flag, but understand little of the significance, because they understand nothing of defending this country, nor understand how peple who have fought its battles feel about our flag. c.i.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 04:55 pm
That's persuasive, c.i. I have yet to come to a final viewpoint on the draft, but that is very persuasive.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 07:22 pm
c.i.
You have just touched on a subject that makes my blood pressure rise. That is flag burning. Yes, the USCC says it's legal, free speech and all. Considering what the flag stands for and what the flag burning implies as far as I am concerned it is treasonous.
Sorry to have digressed. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 07:28 pm
I do not consider flag burning treasonous, but it is certainly no way to win friends and influence people.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 07:33 pm
I see no reason to suppose instituting a draft will teach the young discipline particularly, because by the time they are ready to serve, their parents and society will already have made their mark on them. Plus, many would become bored and pose disciplinary problems. As a result of run ins with the higher ups after that they would leave the service with blemished records that would always follow them. What would the unqualified do besides clean latrines and march anyway?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 07:47 pm
Edgar
As far as I am concerned flag burning is an onerous act. My opinion only.
As for draftees posing disciplinary problems. You will always have a few but they are few and far between. On the whole they will adapt and will no doubt be able to operate today's equipment as well as or better than the professionals since they on average will be better educated.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:11 pm
ci and roger

Disagree with you profoundly on 'discipline' and inculcation of patriotism as justification for draft.

Let's take as an example, the drafted soldiers in Iraq. Likely they are disciplined and have some version of patriotism, but it's a version I think not a good thing. Surely patriotism of worth comes from a clear understanding of WHY one's country is worth bearing arms for, and that suggests education. If you want to draft them into a rigorous overseas aid service, where they can learn skills and discipline - AND get a view of folks who aren't so spoiled, then I'm with you.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:13 pm
Blyth Spirit,

Services in the military forces of this nation has been the salvation of far more young men, than those few who were unable to subordinate their selfish desires to the greater good. There is no way I suppose to prove that, but it isn't difficult to find old men to admit that if hadn't been for military service they would have come to a bad end. Sometimes the military is better for the young person adrift, that the individual is for the service.

Military service does teach discipline, both to self-discipline and to duly appointed authority. Military service engenders pride and self-confidence.

I've outlined the reasons that I am not in favor of restoring compulsory military service above. Only the sub-items in the third point favor the draft in my opinion. Those may justify some sort of compulsory national service structured along military lines, but as yet I have no opinion on whether that would be good for our country, or not.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:20 pm
Au,

Actually young people drafted would probably be less well educated than those now serving in the military. The volunteer army is much more selective than it was when I was young. I dropped out of high school to enlist, today they probably wouldn't have accepted me without finishing high school. Todays recruits have to pass much more rigorous testing than in years past, and only the best are enlisted. The services would go from accepting only the best minds and physical conditioned, to a horde of draftees whose capabilities wouldn't get them past the front door of today's recruiters. The cost of training and dealing with a flood of unwilling recruits would further tax a system that can barely pay its professionals a living wage.

Back in the old days you probably would be right in assuming that the average draftee could gain important skills in a reasonably short time. That is much less likely today. The current Joint forces Doctrines require much more sophistication and precision than in the past. Computers and other advanced systems aren't easily learned, and required extensive training for a soldier to become accomplished.

There has been a lot of criticism of the Reserves, but they have provided valuable service since the end of the Cold War. Reserves have completed Basic Training, and have received some ongoing training while living normal civilian lives. Reserve pilots are a godsend, and reserves are an important component in the logistical element of most continguency plans. Reserves have proven themselves in battle, and I think they deserve more respect than many would give them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:33 pm
Asherman wrote:

Services in the military forces of this nation has been the salvation of far more young men, than those few who were unable to subordinate their selfish desires to the greater good. There is no way I suppose to prove that, but it isn't difficult to find old men to admit that if hadn't been for military service they would have come to a bad end. Sometimes the military is better for the young person adrift, that the individual is for the service.

Military service does teach discipline, both to self-discipline and to duly appointed authority. Military service engenders pride and self-confidence.

.



Military service has also caused mental and physical illness to many enlisted men and women. There are lots of references for that. The veterans hospitals can't handle what they are being asked to already.

Then we have the latest reports about what the Air Force is doing to its pilots
Quote:

CTV News Staff

The two U.S. pilots involved in an accidental bombing that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last April were on government-issued amphetamines, ABC's 20/20 reports.

The report, which aired Friday night, said the amphetamines, also known as speed or uppers, were standard issue to U.S. Air Force combat pilots to help them stay awake on long combat missions.

Maj. Harry Schmidt, 37, and Maj. William Umbach, 43, say they took the pills an hour before the accidental bombing of Canadian soldiers conducting a live-fire nighttime exercise near Kandahar when they were bombed.

The pilots each face four counts of manslaughter and dereliction of duty for the April 17 bombing, in which four Canadian troops died and eight were wounded.

In an exclusive cockpit tape of the pilots, obtained by ABC News, Schmidt is heard saying he is going to fire in self-defence, despite being told to hold his fire.

"I've got some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us... I am rolling in self-defence."

Next, Schmidt says "Bombs away breaking left. Lasers on."

It was only after he dropped the bomb that Schmidt was told it was not the enemy.

'Go-pills'

The two pilots, who are facing up to 64 years in jail if convicted of all charges, were told by superiors they could be found unfit to fly the mission unless they took the pills, their defence lawyers say.

News of the amphetamines, which the Air Force calls "go pills," comes less than a month before the two pilots are to face an Article 32 hearing that will determine if there is enough evidence to go ahead with a trial.

A joint Canadian-American investigation accused the pilots of not following procedure before dropping the 225-kilogram bomb. The pilots claim they were acting in self defence.

Defence lawyers for the two now say the pills would have been at their "maximum serum level" at the time of the bombing and could have caused them to react too quickly.

"They were not told of the most important warning on every label by every manufacturer: Caution," defence lawyer David Beck said.

The U.S. Air Force has ruled out the "go pills" Schmidt and Umbach took as being responsible for the friendly-fire incident and will not be changing their policy, saying they are essential for combat pilots being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Schmidt's mother, Joan, dismisses the military argument that it was the pilot's choice to take it.

"That is not the truth. I mean if you want to fly, you take the pills. If you don't want to take the pills, you're grounded," she said.

Canada a no-go on the go-pills

ABC said the go-pills were "quietly reintroduced" after being banned in 1992 by then Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak.

In Canada, retired Lt. Col. Laurie Hawn, a military analyst, told CTV Newsnet that amphetamines are used only in the U.S. Air Force. The Navy and Marine Corp. do not use the pills.

"And we certainly do not do it and our pilots fly similar lengths of missions in combat," Hawn said. "If you're properly trained and fit, we see no reason to have performance-enhancing drugs."

When asked if he thought the pills could have affected the pilots' judgment, Hawn said, "I'm not doctor and I've never taken any of those kind of drugs, but my gut feel would tell me that anything I'm going to put into my body that's going to alter my thought process or my normal performance is probably not good."

Amphetamines are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to combat fatigue and are listed by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule Two narcotic, the same category as cocaine, ABC News reports.



I don't want any of my friends or family to be drafted into an environment like that. I also would discourage anyone from marrying into the military
Quote:
A spate of murders involving military spouses at the Fort Bragg army base has focused new attention on domestic violence in the U.S. armed services, which critics say the Pentagon has failed to adequately address.
I'm trying to get at the original Reuters link for this. Don't want to post the whole article.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:40 pm
ehBeth

Yes, I caught this meth "Go pills" piece too, it being plunked on the front page of one of Vancouver's dailies. I'm hard pressed to express how repugnant I found this information. Just the euphemism alone - "performance enhancing"...when the black kid down the on the corner gets two years in the slammer for having the same thing in his pocket.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:44 pm
Beth,

No one should ever think that the military isn't a hazardous environment, it is. War and training for war greatly increase the risk that some will be injured or killed. That's part of the job description. A certain number will suffer from disorders resulting from their being unable to deal with the stress of combat. A certain number will die as a result of accidents and friendly fire. No one wants those sort of bad effects, but then war is one of the most trying of all human endeavors.

Many seem to want the military to either become a spirited game of crocuette, or go away altogether. Then who will protect you from the Hitlers, Stalins, Bin Ladins, Saddams and Jong Ils of the world? Those young men and women risk their lives for you every day, and are paid less than your gardner. They go off and leave their families for months at a time to defend your life of luxury.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:51 pm
Asherman, Some people never learn to appreciate the sacrafices made by our military men and women. It's good enough for 'them,' but not their family and friends. People in this country have forgotten what "patriotism" really means. Who do they expect to fight for our freedoms? It's downright shameful! c.i.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 08:58 pm
Asherman, there is no luxury here, no gardener. I still won't encourage anyone to enlist. I would still protest a draft. The Canadian and American military life is too dangerous, here and abroad.

I also don't think we should feel protected, knowing that the Air Force is giving speed to its pilots. The chances that something worse than 4 Canadians being killed could happen is enormous. the possibility of an incident of globally horrific proportions is there.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 09:15 pm
Asherman and ci

My dad and all of my uncles served during WW2. Under certain circumstances, I would take up arms. That soldiers are brave and sacrifice is a given. That they too often are enthusiastic fodder for the state, and that the state inculcates a necessary rah rah attitude also fits into this equation. We don't, in a civilian society, grant carte blache to the military's views and decisions, and that's for some very good reasons.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2003 09:20 pm
blatham, You say that all your uncles and your dad served. Well, my brothers and I served also. Our oldest son served in the US Air Force for over twelve years, and served in Saudi Arabia twice during the Gulf War. Your "civilian" opinions are very cheap from my point of view. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bring back draft
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.6 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 06:25:06