I would think the warmongering conservatives would love this idea. With a bigger army we can have bigger wars. We can invade Iran and Syria. As it stands now we can't even whip a bunch of insurgents in Iraq with what we have not to mention Afghanistan, which we are also losing.
sozobe wrote:I find the class part interesting, especially in terms of whether a draft would actually be an equalizer or not. I think the richest and most connected would get off, as always (senator's son), and I think the poorest and those with the least prospects would be most likely to do it, as always*, but I think the middle class would be the big difference if there were a draft. There are a whole lot of people who would never consider entering the military who also don't have enough clout to avoid it if there were a draft, I think.
I suppose, such opinion is backed by historical facts.
I have been drafted, 18 months in those days.
The only real injustice in my eyes was that women hadn't to go = which meant, when I started my semester at university, they were looking for a thesis for their BA.
After those 18 months, some more disparity happened: we got in those days 18 additional months which were served in a reserve unit.
Noone seemed ever to have to do such .... besides me, because I became of totally unknown reasons a member of the alarm force.
[An aside: I served all those 18 months, primarily when my boat was going to some foreign country :wink: ]
I think draft wasn't equal: those, who could express themselves best (= got a higher education] were able to get through the process of becoming a conscientious objector (which wasn't easy in those days) .... and do two years "civil service" instead.
Nowadays, it's handled here like
wikipedia describes it:
Germany has mandatory military service of nine months for men. Women may volunteer and are allowed to perform almost the same jobs as men. A conscientious objector may petition for permission to do civilian alternative service, "civilian service" (Zivildienst) instead for nine months, which is usually accepted. A third option is to become a foreign development aide (Entwicklungshelfer) for at least eighteen months. Overall, however, during the past few years, the number of men being drafted has declined significantly.
Besides several exceptions, military service is compulsory for all men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three years. Those who are engaged in educational or vocational training programs prior to their military assessment are allowed to postpone service until they have completed the programs and can be called upon to perform their national duty at any time thereafter.
seeing walter's post i just had to post this .
it's an old postcard from prior to (or during) WW I .
the text refers to a song that i had to sing many a times - but somewhat later than WW I !
"wenn the soldiers are marching through town ...
and it goes on : the maidens open the windows and doors " .
even though walter was a sailor , i imagine he had to sing it too ?
or was it no longer "politically" correct after WW II ?
hbg
hamburger wrote:
even though walter was a sailor , i imagine he had to sing it too ?
or was it no longer "politically" correct after WW II ?
hbg
I suppose I did, when arriving after the 20-miles-march in the garrison
Re: Why Not Draft?
There are practical arguments against the draft, but for me they distract from the fundamental moral issue presented by it: When you round up people and force them against their will to kill and die, that's morally equivalent to slavery. I reject the draft on moral principle, just I reject slavery on principle. I feel no need to supply practical arguments for either position.
snood wrote:Doesn't it make sense to you that if we instituted a draft into mandatory service, that those times when more troops are required for our military missions and campaigns we'd have a readily available pool of personnel, rather than continuously extending combat tours and recalling reservists and guardsmen?
Doesn't it make sense to you that if we instituted a draft into mandatory service in cotton picking, that those times when more cotton pickers are required for our agriculture, we'd have a readily available pool of personnel, rather than continuously extending guest woker programs and calling in the Mexicans?
snood wrote:What are your arguments against instituting a draft to augment our badly stretched military?
What are your arguments against re-instituting slavery to augment our badly streched agriculture?
snood wrote:But you live in a society that depends on the sacrifices of those who fight and die in your place.
You also live in a society that depends on the sacrifces of those who pick cotton, milk cows, and produce cars in your place, and a million other things too. In all these other venues, we rely on the customers' willingness to pay to determine how much of every service is provided. Why should national defense be any different? If the US needs more soldiers, why doesn't it raise their pay by, say, 50%, expand the national defense budget the and the taxes to pay for it accordingly?
Snood wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Second, if the military is too badly stretched, perhaps we should retreat. People make it sound like the end of the world, but I can think of dozens of countries who either lost of basically tied wars, and they seem to be doing okay today. So I don't believe the hyperventilating of some on that issue.
You're much too smart for airheadedness like this. If we don't have enough troops to handle the conflicts our politicians commit to, then we should just retreat, or settle on a tie? This would work if we were talking about a game of Risk. I'm talking about real solutions for real problems.
I think Cycloptichorn's point is that politicians should consider that before they decide to start a conflict. Cycloptichorn makes a lot of sense to me here; I don't find him air-headed at all.
Snood wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I would happily join a local militia to protect my region from armed invasion or gov't fascism.
I don't even know how to reply to someone who thinks each individual community gets to decide which wars are worth fighting and which ones aren't.
If you review the history of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, you will find significant support -- though admittedly no scholarly consensus -- for the proposition that precisely this was your founders' defense against government tyranny. Cycloptichorn may well be upholding a century-old American tradition here.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I would happily support a mandated Service requirement. Upon graduating HS, you have to put in 1-2 years of state service, either in the armed forces, the peace forces, environmental reconstruction teams, WPA-style groups, whatever.
This is where I depart from Cycloptichorn. His service requirement is still morally equivalent to slavery.
Thomas wrote:snood wrote:But you live in a society that depends on the sacrifices of those who fight and die in your place.
You also live in a society that depends on the sacrifces of those who pick cotton, milk cows, and produce cars in your place, and a million other things too. In all these other venues, we rely on the customers' willingness to pay to determine how much of every service is provided. Why should national defense be any different? If the US needs more soldiers, why doesn't it raise their pay by, say, 50%, expand the national defense budget the and the taxes to pay for it accordingly?
Snood wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Second, if the military is too badly stretched, perhaps we should retreat. People make it sound like the end of the world, but I can think of dozens of countries who either lost of basically tied wars, and they seem to be doing okay today. So I don't believe the hyperventilating of some on that issue.
You're much too smart for airheadedness like this. If we don't have enough troops to handle the conflicts our politicians commit to, then we should just retreat, or settle on a tie? This would work if we were talking about a game of Risk. I'm talking about real solutions for real problems.
I think Cycloptichorn's point is that politicians should consider that before they decide to start a conflict. Cycloptichorn makes a lot of sense to me here; I don't find him air-headed at all.
Snood wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I would happily join a local militia to protect my region from armed invasion or gov't fascism.
I don't even know how to reply to someone who thinks each individual community gets to decide which wars are worth fighting and which ones aren't.
If you review the history of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, you will find significant support -- though admittedly no scholarly consensus -- for the proposition that precisely this was your founders' defense against government tyranny. Cycloptichorn may well be upholding a century-old American tradition here.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I would happily support a mandated Service requirement. Upon graduating HS, you have to put in 1-2 years of state service, either in the armed forces, the peace forces, environmental reconstruction teams, WPA-style groups, whatever.
This is where I depart from Cycloptichorn. His service requirement is still morally equivalent to slavery.
Interesting.
I think that there are differences in perception of the 'nation' and the 'state.' I don't actually perceive there to be a difference between the Country USA and the people of the USA; they are the same, in that one is the embodiment of the other. Meh. That doesn't sound very clear.
Mostly what I was getting at is: you get out of an enterprise, what you put into it. As citizens of the country, we expect to get a hell of a lot out of it over the course of our lives; and what do we put in, besides taxes and the occasional vote? Not much. We all know that throwing money at problems is no solution, it takes personal effort and work in order to solve problems.
When I see the country with certain problems that need solving, it makes sense to ask the citizens of the country to band together and do it.
I will think more about the slave analogy, except that I would say that a slave is not free to leave and go elsewhere, whereas a citizen of the USA is perfectly free to do so if they don't want to put in the work.
Alternatively, how about a
Starship Troopers style system - one in which only those who perform state service, are given the right to vote? All are eligible, only some choose to, and it's never too late to change your mind and become a voting citizen - all you have to do is put in a year or two of work in a wide variety of areas.
Cheers to you sir
Cycloptichorn
I missed that part about whether or not a community gets to decide which wars are worth fighting and which wars are not.
One of the most ludicrous aspects of the entire militia issue to me has always been just how unreliable the militia have always been in our history. They have only ever fought well when fighting close to home, and often not even then. When the militia assembled for the battle of Bunker Hill (which was fought on Breed's Hill--but the name makes sense, most of the militia milled around on Bunker Hill and took no part in the battle), Israel Putnam of Connecticutt was supposedly in charge. Many of the Massachusetts militia didn't to serve under a Connecticutt officer, though, and voted (i **** you not) not to take orders from Putnam. Colonel Prescott of Boston, though, simply told his boys they were going up the hill (Breed's Hill) and to get moving. Additionally, Colonel Glover of Marblehead (whose boys were to prove very important to Washington after he ordered them to join the Continental Army) told his boys they were moving up, and they joined Colonel Stark of New Hampshire, who also told his boys they were going to move up. Other officers coaxed some of their boys to join the battle, but more than three times as many militiamen as all the troops the Brits brought to the party just stood around and watched.
At Freeman's Farm, the last and conclusively victorious battle of the Saratoga campaign, militiamen from all over New England flocked to fight with Benedict Arnold (Connecticutt man), whom they admired and trusted. That is about the only example in the Revolution when militiamen served reliably outside their home areas. At Hannah's Cowpens, Dan Morgan went around to the militia encampments the night before, and is reputed to have told them: "Boys, just give me two good fires--two fires, and then you can skedaddle." That's exactly what happened. The militia fired, reloaded, fired again, and ran away. Tarleton was suckered big time, and the red coats came on at a run, with their formation disintegrating. Morgan sent the Continentals over the hill, William Washington hit them in flank with Continental dragoons, and it not only destoyed Tarleton's force, it ended Tarleton's career of terrorizing people in America.
On Long Island, the militia ran away. When the Brits landed at Kip's Bay on Manhatten, the militia ran away--Washington became so incensed, the threw down his hat, rode back and forth over the hat, and then drew his sword and charge the English. His aides caught him in time, and the English were so nonplussed that no one thought to shoot at him. Washington despised the militia. At Whiteplains, the militia ran away. At Trenton and Princeton, the Pennsylvania militia failed to show up (Trenton) or ran away (Princeton)--but the Virginia militia behaved fairly well, with Washington there to lead them personally.
Washington was so disgusted by the militia (who also ran away at Camden, Eutis Springs and Guilford Court House), that he tried never to use them, or to at least make sure they weren't where their panic could infect other units.
The first attempt to invade Canada in the War of 1812 was at Queenstown in late 1812. Most of the New York militia simply refused to fight. Of those who did cross the river, most of them quickly lost interest when the Brits started to shoot back, and pushed the wounded out of the way to take possession of the boats, and get back across the Niagara River to the New York side. At Bladensburg, there were fewer than 2,000 Brits, and more than 7,000 Virginia and Maryland militia. They took one look at the "thin red line" approaching them, threw down their weapons and ran away. A few hundred sailors and Marines fought the Brits to a standstill, until the sun went down, and then the Marines marched out, carrying their dead and wounded with them. At New Orleans, the Crescent City militia behaved well, but they were behind a mud wall, and "corset-laced" with Tennessee volunteers and sailors and Marines (Jefferson's gun boat navy kept getting sunk by the Royal Navy, so the U.S. Navy and the Marines did most of their fighting on land)--and, of course, they were fighting to defend their homes. Across the river, on the west side, the Kentucky militia got one good look at the redcoats, and threw down their guns and ran away.
In the civil war, volunteers and draftees fought most of the war--the militia were hopeless. Pennsylvania militia ran away when the Confederates invaded, and Georgia militia ran away when the Yankees invaded.
All in all, i experience great hilarity whenever i hear people going on about the militia.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I think that there are differences in perception of the 'nation' and the 'state.' I don't actually perceive there to be a difference between the Country USA and the people of the USA; they are the same, in that one is the embodiment of the other. Meh. That doesn't sound very clear.
You're clear enough -- and, in my opinion, mistaken. The country is one thing, the state that governs it another. This difference is important because a draft benefits one part of the country -- the state -- by taking away from another part of the country -- the draftees.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Mostly what I was getting at is: you get out of an enterprise, what you put into it. As citizens of the country, we expect to get a hell of a lot out of it over the course of our lives; and what do we put in, besides taxes and the occasional vote? Not much.
If you're an average American, the taxes you pay make up about a third of your gross income. So I'm a bit bemused by your language about "what do we put in?" Does the name Monty Python rings any bells in Berkeley? Your belittling of taxes reminds me of John Cleese, acting as a first century Israeli, ranting: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Cycloptichorn wrote: We all know that throwing money at problems is no solution, it takes personal effort and work in order to solve problems.
I don't know that. In fact I strongly disagree with it. Why don't we each put our opinions to a practical test? Please transfer all your money to my bank account. This will leave you less money to throw at your problems, which you think is no loss to you in terms of solving problems. On the other hand, it will give me more money to throw at my problems, which I think is a gain for me in terms of solving problems. I think I'll gain from the transaction, you don't think you'll loose from it, again in terms of solving problems. Deal?
Cycloptichorn wrote:When I see the country with certain problems that need solving, it makes sense to ask the citizens of the country to band together and do it.
It does. It also makes sense to
ask people to work in the fields. But the draft, just as slavery, isn't
asking people to do something, it's
telling them to -- with crude violence to back up the telling.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I will think more about the slave analogy, except that I would say that a slave is not free to leave and go elsewhere, whereas a citizen of the USA is perfectly free to do so if they don't want to put in the work.
In that case, here's a suggestion for you: America abolishes the 13th--15th Amendments and re-enslaves 20% of the population. It doesn't, however, reenact the fugitive slave act. This removes the imperfection you found in the analogy. Are you in?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Alternatively, how about a Starship Troopers style system - one in which only those who perform state service, are given the right to vote? All are eligible, only some choose to, and it's never too late to change your mind and become a voting citizen - all you have to do is put in a year or two of work in a wide variety of areas.
Fine with me, as long as only voting rights, but no human rights, are affected.
Without having read a single thing on this thread, I wanted to say (before I lost the thread), that I have been pondering this very question for weeks.
Congressman Charlie Rangel plans to reintroduce a bill calling for the reinstating of the draft under the banner statement: if you're prone to knee-jerking America into war again, you had better be prepared to put your hawk-ass where you hawk-beak is. Otherwise, think twice before you rah-rah another misguided armed conflict because Uncle Sam will be asking you for help. And that help will involve a bit more than slapping a yellow-ribbon magnet on your SUV before waddling downstairs to play SOCOM.
The bill's ultimate fate not withstanding, I figure while the president and Senator McCain examine more troops in Iraq, those of you who are so inclined should volunteer right now. And if you're older than 42, but you have service-aged children, bestow upon them your old W'04 bumper sticker and demand they support the war by signing up. You chickenhawks like preemption, so it's time to preempt Congressman Rangel.
Enlist in the ARMY
Enlist in the MARINES
Enlist in the NAVY
Enlist in the AIR FORCE
Enlist in the COAST GUARD
Or for those of you in favor of the privatization of our military, check out the Middle Eastern job opportunities at Halliburton. This is a recommended path for those of you who can't do more than two pull-ups or more than 35 sit-ups (the minimum physical requirement for service). But at least you'll be in The **** and, because you're so gung ho, you'll get to test your full-steam-ahead bravery while under fire -- without the assistance of wussy firearms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/lets-go-chickenhawks-p_b_34554.html
I haven't read all the previous answers, but coming from Germany, where we have a draft, I can see, that the result is a bunch of so-called soldiers that bide their time in the army, but are not committed to what they are doing.
And who wants to put their lives in the hands of such people?[color]
Bohne wrote:I haven't read all the previous answers, but coming from Germany, where we have a draft, I can see, that the result is a bunch of so-called soldiers that bide their time in the army, but are not committed to what they are doing.
And who wants to put their lives in the hands of such people?[color]
I don't know from where you got such an impression - own experiences?
I didn't bide my time at all in the forces and I wasn't a so-called soldier (actually, I never was a soldier but a sailor :wink: ).
"... not committed to what they are doing" - what do you mean by that?
(The "Bundeswehr" still is a 'defense force'.)
I can assure you, Bohne, that I most certainly had studied two years earlier if I had had the choice!
I think maybe she was saying that soldiers forced to serve through the draft were inferior soldiers.
That would be insulting - they get e.g. the same training as volunteers (at least in German Forces, Bohne is speaking of.)
snood wrote:I think maybe she was saying that soldiers forced to serve through the draft were inferior soldiers.
Israel has the draft, right? Are Israeli soldiers seen as inferior to their American counterparts?
(just a thought...)
I didn't say it - I was saying that's what I thought bohne was saying....
Israel has a mandatory military service requirement for male and female Jewish citizens with some exceptions. It basically makes all jews a part of the military and reserves. Not so much a draft, more like a fact of life due to the continuing threats against Israel from the Arab coountries surrounding Israel.
old europe wrote:snood wrote:I think maybe she was saying that soldiers forced to serve through the draft were inferior soldiers.
Israel has the draft, right? Are Israeli soldiers seen as inferior to their American counterparts?
(just a thought...)
Since she said as well:
Quote:And who wants to put their lives in the hands of such people?
Still a couple of countries. According to
Wikipedia:
Quote:7 Countries with mandatory military service (partial list)
7.1 Austria
7.2 Belarus
7.3 Bermuda
7.4 Brazil
7.5 Bulgaria
7.6 Chile
7.7 China (PRC)
7.8 Croatia
7.9 Cyprus
7.10 Denmark
7.11 Egypt
7.12 Eritrea
7.13 Finland
7.14 Germany
7.15 Greece
7.16 Iran
7.17 Israel
7.18 Korea, South
7.19 Lebanon
7.20 Malaysia
7.21 Mexico
7.22 Norway
7.23 Poland
7.24 Russia
7.25 Serbia and Montenegro
7.26 Singapore
7.27 Sweden
7.28 Switzerland
7.29 Taiwan (ROC)
7.30 Turkey
7.31 Ukraine
7.32 Venezuela
Quote:Alternatively, how about a Starship Troopers style system - one in which only those who perform state service, are given the right to vote? All are eligible, only some choose to, and it's never too late to change your mind and become a voting citizen - all you have to do is put in a year or two of work in a wide variety of areas.
I was goint to try to ignore this, but i won't. Robert Heinlein was a racist, sexist, ultraconservative pig, and a poor writer into the bargain. I read Heinlein when i was a boy, and loved it. Then when i was 30, i reread
Starship Troopers, and came across that "you don't serve, you don't vote crap" on the first page, and was disgusted. Then i re-read
Farnham's Freehold thereafter, and realized just what a racist and sexist gobshite Heinlein was. What's really ironic is to compare Heinlein's politics and yours.
What about people who can't serve? What about someone with physical disabilities, should they be denied the vote because they sit in a wheelchair? What about women who have children by the time they're 18, and can't leave them to serve, should they be denied the vote?
That's just a stupid idea. Sorry, Cyclo, but i don't think you gave that very much thought.
