Why Not Draft?

edgarblythe wrote:

I would be more receptive to a larger military if there existed a practical need. Right now, we are engaging in a series of wars that could have been handled some other way. Why reward the politicians with more troops and more money? How about enforcing a bit of statesmanship on them?

Apparently the numerous Islamic groups in the Middle East which desire to inflict another 9/11 or worse on the US doesn't constitute a practical need. Oh, I forget, they're lovely, civilized people who are trying to wipe us out only because we deserve it.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I would be more receptive to a larger military if there existed a practical need. Right now, we are engaging in a series of wars that could have been handled some other way. Why reward the politicians with more troops and more money? How about enforcing a bit of statesmanship on them?

OK,lets negotiate.

We will not stop our support for Israel,we will continue to provide them with the weapons they need to defend themselves,and we will not allow you to aquire any type of Nuclear weapons for you to use against Israel.

Now,what is the position of the Arabs and Palestinians,and how do we come to any kind of agreement?

0 Replies

Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

0 Replies

Interestingly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimous in opposing more troops in Iraq. I agree with Colin Powell, who opposes more troops there because there is no clear mission justifying the increase.

However, we may need a bigger military in general, and a draft may be the best path towards this.

MM, did you really have to drag Israel into this discussion? I thought it was just Blueflame who takes shots at Israel in virtually every thread. Israel had nothing to do with our invading Iraq. Bush invaded for oil and political capital.

0 Replies

Our troops occupying Iraq invite militants to come and take actions to kill Americans. We are actually sending them opportunities to continue the mayhem, meanwhile creating a civil war among the citizens and religious leaders. If that's considered fighting terrorism, we might as well throw in the towel, because it won't ever work.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Interestingly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimous in opposing more troops in Iraq. I agree with Colin Powell, who opposes more troops there because there is no clear mission justifying the increase.

However, we may need a bigger military in general, and a draft may be the best path towards this.

MM, did you really have to drag Israel into this discussion? I thought it was just Blueflame who takes shots at Israel in virtually every thread. Israel had nothing to do with our invading Iraq. Bush invaded for oil and political capital.

I mentioned Israel because,according to some on here,our support for Israel is the reason that we are hated by most of the muslims that hate us.
So,any negotiation between the US and the Muslim world must include our support for Israel.

But,if you want to exclude our support for Israel,the lets do this...

We will not leave Iraq until the job is accomplished.
When Iraq has a secure govt,is able to defend itself,and the insurgent groups are totally destroyed,then we will leave Iraq.
On that issue,we will not negotiate or compromise.

Now,what is your (the insurgents and America haters in the middleeast) position and on what can we compromise?

0 Replies

MM said:

"We will not leave Iraq until the job is accomplished.
When Iraq has a secure govt,is able to defend itself,and the insurgent groups are totally destroyed,then we will leave Iraq.
On that issue,we will not negotiate or compromise."

Do you think that this will happen in your lifetime" Leno tells the story of the general who told Bush that it will take 100 years to accomplish the goal. Bush replied loudly that he would not accept a timetable.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

Do you have any actual, rational counterargument to what I said? I think that you don't. It's baloney to say that if I am not in the military personally, I have no right to express any opinion on US defense. Furthermore, one would wish that you could respond to politely expressed posts here politely. The nature of your response suggests the feebleness of your position on the issue.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

Do you have any actual, rational counterargument to what I said? I think that you don't. It's baloney to say that if I am not in the military personally, I have no right to express any opinion on US defense. Furthermore, one would wish that you could respond to politely expressed posts here politely. The nature of your response suggests the feebleness of your position on the issue.

can't walk the walk.... can't talk the talk.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

Do you have any actual, rational counterargument to what I said? I think that you don't. It's baloney to say that if I am not in the military personally, I have no right to express any opinion on US defense. Furthermore, one would wish that you could respond to politely expressed posts here politely. The nature of your response suggests the feebleness of your position on the issue.

can't walk the walk.... can't talk the talk.

You're on record then, as saying that no one not in the army has a right to any opinion about US defense, which is just on the face of it wrong. And, anyway, no matter what my personal faults, that doesn't make my position wrong. Go ahead, flee from addressing what I asserted and talk only about me. Why should that surprise me, you never have the guts or the inclination to argue the actual subject. I'm sure that's a characteristic of people in the right.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

Do you have any actual, rational counterargument to what I said? I think that you don't. It's baloney to say that if I am not in the military personally, I have no right to express any opinion on US defense. Furthermore, one would wish that you could respond to politely expressed posts here politely. The nature of your response suggests the feebleness of your position on the issue.

can't walk the walk.... can't talk the talk.

You're on record then, as saying that no one not in the army has a right to any opinion about US defense, which is just on the face of it wrong. And, anyway, no matter what my personal faults, that doesn't make my position wrong. Go ahead, flee from addressing what I asserted and talk only about me. Why should that surprise me, you never have the guts or the inclination to argue the actual subject. I'm sure that's a characteristic of people in the right.

Of course you have the right to express your opinion - but it's a hollow and cowardly one, and we have the right to point it out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good afternoon. Yall have been attacking each other with great vigor. But if we can return to the topic of the draft.

Whether we like it or not, the plan for an influx of troops into Iraq (the surge) seems possible - even if some miltary folks don't think it is a good idea.
Whether we like it or not, the suggesstion is being made that we will be in Iraq and Afghan for several more years.
The word coming out of the pentagon is that the military, faced with the potential challenges, needs to add troops.

We can't keep sending the same troops back for a 3rd or 4th or 5th tour.
And if voluntary enlistments are flat or down, what option is there other than a draft?

The question is, who should be exempt from the draft, if that is what we end up needing to talk about: College Students, War Objectors, NFL Players, Children of Rich People, Members of the Clergy. Women.

0 Replies

Most probably quite a few remember how draft worked in th USA.

And I suppose, it was very similar as it was here: quite fair, but everyone drafted knew about those, who could avoid it.
(I'm not sure if there was a service for objectors like in Germany: while I served 18 months, war objectors had to serve 18 months. Later, it was 15 vs. 20. Nowadays reduced to 9 months for both.)

0 Replies

No, Walter. The draft system here in the US during Vietnam was not fairly applied.
For awhile married guys (the draft only applied to men) were exempt, as were college students and members of the clergy (hence, Walter's Church of Nearly Bald Guys or similar such sects).

My High Schools's football team didn't lose a game in five years, but lo and behold, all of the players developed bad knees upon graduation and were declared by a local doctor to be medically unfit for service. Except for the team's quaterback, who became a decorated helicopter pilot in Vietnam.
My last roommate in college had a girl friend whose dad was important in Richmond politics. And an earlier roommate's dad was the head of the steel union local in his burg. Those guys got into the reserve units and never had to go anywhere.

I am not bitter about those cases. Quite the contrary. 15 months, 10 days and 6 hours in Vietnam. In a lost cause? Probably we recognized that; perhaps we didn't. But Realjohnboy, I, who ended up as a squad leader with some black guys and some Puerto Rican guys and a Cajun and a couple of poor white kids from the middle of nowhere. 15 months, 10 days and 6 hours that changed my life forever.

If we get to a draft again, it MUST be a universal draft. No exceptions.

0 Replies

Some experts are saying that, due to our involvement in the two wars, we would be unable to properly respond militarily should another conflict become necessary. This, I think, makes a case for a larger military. Further, a draft (with virtually no exemptions and including women) would be the best approach.

The first two drafted should be Jenna and Barbara.

0 Replies

Well, yes, there were exceptions here as well - I've always wondered how some local sports champions got attests as if they were disabled.

But in all fairness, this was only a very low number ...

[I still don't know how I was "chosen" to be one of the very few to get called AFTER those 18 months again [you had to serve another 18 months in the reserve - only some dozens, I believe, ever had to do it. I've been amongst that number. Alarm reserve <grrrr> but that made me a first officer ... ... on a landing craft :wink: ])

0 Replies

Many people went for advanced degrees only for the purpose of gaining deferments. Cheny is an example of this.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon why don't you join the military or shut up?

Merry Christmas.

Do you have any actual, rational counterargument to what I said? I think that you don't. It's baloney to say that if I am not in the military personally, I have no right to express any opinion on US defense. Furthermore, one would wish that you could respond to politely expressed posts here politely. The nature of your response suggests the feebleness of your position on the issue.

can't walk the walk.... can't talk the talk.

You're on record then, as saying that no one not in the army has a right to any opinion about US defense, which is just on the face of it wrong. And, anyway, no matter what my personal faults, that doesn't make my position wrong. Go ahead, flee from addressing what I asserted and talk only about me. Why should that surprise me, you never have the guts or the inclination to argue the actual subject. I'm sure that's a characteristic of people in the right.

Of course you have the right to express your opinion - but it's a hollow and cowardly one, and we have the right to point it out.

Cycloptichorn

Fine, whatever, but the really telling part is that afterwards you don't say word one to challenge the actual substance of what I said. And it isn't that complicated. I said that all of the radical Islamic groups trying to do sequels to 9/11 may justify a larger army.

0 Replies

bullshit. Exactly how did our army, navy, air force and marines, which were already huge, prevent 9/11? They didn't.

Spend the money on homeland security and apply our efforts and funds to building an inspection and immigration sytem to keep us safe internally, and develop alternative energy programs (not just more profitable for a small group oil drilling programs) so we are not dependent on leaders who are feeding at the tit of the middle east and we wont need a gigantic military to fight wars that stupidity and greed cause.

But there's no profit and no bid contracts in that approach is there?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

bullshit. Exactly how did our army, navy, air force and marines, which were already huge, prevent 9/11? They didn't.

Spend the money on homeland security and apply our efforts and funds to building an inspection and immigration sytem to keep us safe internally, and develop alternative energy programs (not just more profitable for a small group oil drilling programs) so we are not dependent on leaders who are feeding at the tit of the middle east and we wont need a gigantic military to fight wars that stupidity and greed cause.

But there's no profit and no bid contracts in that approach is there?

That's all good stuff, but you can't defend every conceivable target against every conceivable form of attack 24 x 7 for the rest of time. If you defend the airports, they can blow up the movie theaters, or shopping malls, or poison the water. This battle cannot be won purely defensively. Sooner or later you have to go kill the people who are trying to kill you in their own country before they can attack. There is no practical alternative.

0 Replies

Why Not Draft?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know