CDZ Reinstate The Draft

[jasonnfree]

Not changing the subject but forced schooling from age 5 or 6 until age 18 is involuntary servitude to the state also. Where do you draw the line on some things.

 

[320 Years of History]

For a variety of reasons. Primarily - to give young Americans an opportunity to serve - let's say 2 years active, 4 in the reserves, immediately following graduation from high school. Not only will two years of active duty be of benefit to America, it will also instill some tremendous values into a generation who seems to have none. Build some pride. Have an opportunity to team build, work with others - do something for people in need.

Discuss...

Red:
Young people already have that opportunity even though we the draft isn't in effect.

Blue:
Can you enumerate what some of those benefits -- ones we miss out on by not having the draft -- are?

Purple:
Can you please show empirically how those things are not attainable absent a draft?

Additionally, it seems to me that there are values held by most members of all generations.

Green:
Team building? Working in teams? Volunteering? Those are things you think reinstituting the draft will achieve?

You need to get out more. Some of the largest firms and corporations I know of -- IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, McKinsey, Bain, Boston Consulting, Walmart, and others -- regularly have team building events and training. Heck, there's an industry built around helping employers develop and carry out such things.

• VIRGINIA Team Building Richmond 804-545-9489 / Norfolk 757-271-6375
  
• Team Building DC Tours at the National Gallery of Art Museum
  
• Team-building News & Topics
  
• How to Host Team Building Events That Actually Work - Geneva National

Notwithstanding the above, merely playing on a sports team imparts the skills needed to learn how to work with others, to say nothing of team building.

Lastly, I've got news for you: there are literally millions of volunteering opportunities in the U.S., and that's not even considering the type of volunteering that one may take on absent any organization's backing. For example, 20 years ago I met a woman at the church I attended. She mentioned that her child was having difficulty writing papers. I offered to help them out and since then, she's referred other kids in her neighborhood to me and I've been mentoring/tutoring at least a couple kids a year from that point on, just doing the best I can for them as I can. At this point, the input I provide goes way beyond helping with schoolwork.

It's not difficult to "do something for people in need" if one is of the constitution to do so. All it takes is the willingness to share the lessons one has learned and committing to do just that.

 

[neither]

Start drafting senator's sons, son and the problem will be solved.

The old draft was not at all fair. Also, include women to be drafted.

 

[regent]

For a variety of reasons. Primarily - to give young Americans an opportunity to serve - let's say 2 years active, 4 in the reserves, immediately following graduation from high school. Not only will two years of active duty be of benefit to America, it will also instill some tremendous values into a generation who seems to have none. Build some pride. Have an opportunity to team build, work with others - do something for people in need.

Discuss...

No...the last thing we need is to infect the army with more anti military left wingers. The military works best when those who want to serve, serve. It is a calling and shouldn't be forced on people.

I don't think Liberal men would choose the military option. They'd go Greenpeace or some other "sissy" organization

Oliver Stone went to Vietnam

To have a draft to fight a war requires the war to be of real value to America. Vietnam was not and the draft was scuttled. We fought WWII with both volunteers and draftees, and the major difference was their serial numbers.

But I think they started drafting in WW2 when not enough people enlisted.

Early in the war enlistees could pick their branch of service, the Air Force probably had too many volunteers and the infantry none, The infantry needed people so I think they dropped enlistments and went only to the draft. I volunteered to be drafted early in the war and after my physical an Ensign came by and stamped some of our hands "navy" and for a short time I was a sailor but after a series arguments I was stamped army. All in all it was probably a better utilization and distribution of manpower. Another plus might be the distribution of educated folk in the ranks. Our infantry company had a couple of PFC lawyers for example, walking alongside PFC high-school-dropouts. As for liberals most of the enlisted pukes were FDR liberals. If there were Republicans in the military I suspect they were in the upper ranks.

 

[jasonnfree]

For a variety of reasons. Primarily - to give young Americans an opportunity to serve - let's say 2 years active, 4 in the reserves, immediately following graduation from high school. Not only will two years of active duty be of benefit to America, it will also instill some tremendous values into a generation who seems to have none. Build some pride. Have an opportunity to team build, work with others - do something for people in need.

Discuss...

No...the last thing we need is to infect the army with more anti military left wingers. The military works best when those who want to serve, serve. It is a calling and shouldn't be forced on people.

I don't think Liberal men would choose the military option. They'd go Greenpeace or some other "sissy" organization

Oliver Stone went to Vietnam

To have a draft to fight a war requires the war to be of real value to America. Vietnam was not and the draft was scuttled. We fought WWII with both volunteers and draftees, and the major difference was their serial numbers.

But I think they started drafting in WW2 when not enough people enlisted.

Early in the war enlistees could pick their branch of service, the Air Force probably had too many volunteers and the infantry none, The infantry needed people so I think they dropped enlistments and went only to the draft. I volunteered to be drafted early in the war and after my physical an Ensign came by and stamped some of our hands "navy" and for a short time I was a sailor but after a series arguments I was stamped army. All in all it was probably a better utilization and distribution of manpower. Another plus might be the distribution of educated folk in the ranks. Our infantry company had a couple of PFC lawyers for example, walking alongside PFC high-school-dropouts. As for liberals most of the enlisted pukes were FDR liberals. If there were Republicans in the military I suspect they were in the upper ranks.

Thanks for info to someone who was there. I had 2 uncles who went into submarine service early on in the war. One went down with his sub. Happy thanksgiving.

 

[Mike473]

Interesting topic. So, let's assume a draft for service was put into place. Men & women. Multiple possible avenues of service, but it must be done. Once completed, the college and health care benefits associated with military service are awarded.

Wouldn't that pretty much provide the universal health care and college benefits so many people would like to see in the United States?

 

[320 Years of History]

If there is one thing I think the draft could potentially do, it's serve as an equalizer of sorts among the populace. I think that if, like some countries, all physically and mentally able people are required to serve in the armed forces for two to four years, the "power elite" would be more inclined than they are now to more rigorously pursue diplomatically collaborative means of conflict resolution. After all, it's easier to say "let's put boots on the ground" when no pair of them is worn by one's friends and loved ones.

 

[waltky]

Obama in favor of drafting women for the military?...

Would Obama Sign Legislation Requiring Women to Register for Draft
April 29, 2016 - White House Spokesman Josh Earnest was asked at Thursday's press briefing if President Barack Obama would sign legislation requiring women to register for the selective service and whether it "has given him any pause to think that perhaps his daughters would have to sign up for the selective service."

Earnest said he couldn't "weigh in" on the issue "because it is a subject of litigation." He also said he hasn't heard President Obama "weigh in publicly on this." On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee passed an amendment requiring women between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for the Selective Service. The full House is expected to vote on the larger defense authorization bill next month.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) introduced the Draft America’s Daughters Act in February, not because he supports the idea of drafting women, but because he opposes it. “It’s wrong and irresponsible to make wholesale changes to the way America fights its wars without the American people having a say on whether their daughters and sisters will be on the front lines of combat,” Hunter said in February. “If this Administration wants to send 18-20 year old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives." Hunter voted against his bill, which passed the committee 32-30.

At the White House on Thursday, a reporter asked if Obama would sign a bill containing the selective service provision. "That's a good question," Earnest said. "Obviously, this is an issue that is going to attract a lot of attention, understandably so. There's not much that I can say about it, however, because this is the subject of some ongoing litigation. "You've seen recent announcements from the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that would give more women who are in the military the opportunity to defend their country in more roles. "And the president obviously has welcomed that progress. He certainly believes that makes our fighting forces even stronger." "And the other thing that we know to be true is that men and women have served in our all volunteer force in both Iraq and in Afghanistan with distinction, and with courage, and with bravery. And it's because of their service and sacrifice, both men and women, that we're safer and that we enjoy so many of the freedoms that are easy to take for granted. "The president certainly does not take them for granted. The president has often talked about how serving as the Commander in Chief of the United States military is the greatest honor. And that certainly is true because of the service and sacrifice that American men and women have made in our military."

The United States currently has an all-volunteer military. The draft ended in 1973, but all young men must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18. A teenage girl in New Jersey filed a class-action suit against the military last July, claiming it's discriminatory for the Selective Service to omit women now that the U.S. military has opened all combat jobs to women.

WH Asked: Would Obama Sign Legislation Requiring Women to Register for Draft

 

[D Truth]

They want to draft everyone, they have made this clear for a long time...

Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)
FrontPage Magazine - Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)

Now Charlie Rangel proposes to legally remove this barrier, apparently under the pretense that the most effective weapon the Army is lacking in its war against global terrorism is middle-aged housewives.

You see there is no limit with these type of shit bags.

So years later, Rangels justification for his bill was a crock of shit... democrats want to draft everyone. And the neocons? well they never were really different from the democrats now were they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They want to draft everyone, they have made this clear for a long time...

Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)
FrontPage Magazine - Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)

Now Charlie Rangel proposes to legally remove this barrier, apparently under the pretense that the most effective weapon the Army is lacking in its war against global terrorism is middle-aged housewives.

You see there is no limit with these type of shit bags.

Wrong.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – the bill was introduced in 2003, it got no support; there is no ‘they.’

 

[D Truth]

They want to draft everyone, they have made this clear for a long time...

Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)
FrontPage Magazine - Charlie Rangel Wants to Draft Your Daughter (And Your Mom, Too)

Now Charlie Rangel proposes to legally remove this barrier, apparently under the pretense that the most effective weapon the Army is lacking in its war against global terrorism is middle-aged housewives.

You see there is no limit with these type of shit bags.

So years later, Rangels justification for his bill was a crock of shit... democrats want to draft everyone. And the neocons? well they never were really different from the democrats now were they?

Wrong.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – the bill was introduced in 2003, it got no support; there is no ‘they.’

So they floated a bill, with a "hey we are just kidding" reasoning... only years later, turns out they were not kidding.

 

[erichfootball]

What about 1 year forced community service? if joined you get minimum wage plus public college benefits.

 

[Syriusly]

For a variety of reasons. Primarily - to give young Americans an opportunity to serve - let's say 2 years active, 4 in the reserves, immediately following graduation from high school. Not only will two years of active duty be of benefit to America, it will also instill some tremendous values into a generation who seems to have none. Build some pride. Have an opportunity to team build, work with others - do something for people in need.

Discuss...

I didn't realize this was an old thread- oh well- here again

1. All young Americans have an opportunity to serve now- you propose not an opportunity but a mandate
2. Why is it always older people suggesting that younger people be drafted? Why not make it a draft on every American who has not previously served in the military- regardless of age?
3. The draft has not been shown to be particularly effective in 'instilling values' or 'building pride'.
   
4. The military doesn't want a draft- they want willing and enthusiastic recruits.
5. The only reason, as far as I am concerned, for a universal draft is so that everyone has to put skin in the game- so that fathers of young men and women worry about their son's and daughters before being willing to risk lives in a war.
6. We should be making the military a more attractive career option- and be willing to pay to make it so.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea - so's mebbe he won't be drafted...

Hoyer on Selective Service Registration: ‘Women Ought to Be Treated Equally’
May 10, 2016 – At his weekly briefing with reporters on Tuesday at the Capitol, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that women should be “treated equally” when it comes to being required to register with the Selective Service.

“Women ought to be treated equally,” Hoyer said. Current law requires men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register with the Selective Service to serve as a pool for the U.S. military should a draft become necessary. Since Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced in December that all combat roles would be open to females beginning in January, discussion has been sparked about whether women should be required to register with the Selective Service.

In discussing the House’s upcoming consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Hoyer was asked about women and the Selective Service. “Women ought to be treated equally,” Hoyer said. “And I think if you’re going to have Selective Service registration continue and you’re going to have women available to serve in the Armed Forces in either front line capacity or support capacity or both – which I think is now the case legally – then I think it makes sense to have eligible individuals – male or female – register as long as you have registration.

“Now whether it makes sense to continue that when the likelihood of a draft seems pretty small at this point in time, but one never knows,” Hoyer said. “Internationally, we are in a very unstable context, and therefore, it may well make sense to continue to have a pool available – a large pool available -- in the event that we need to in a very rapid order ramp up the numbers of folks in the Armed Forces.”

Hoyer on Selective Service Registration: ?Women Ought to Be Treated Equally?

See also:

Marine Corps Approves First Two Women for Infantry Positions
May 10, 2016 | The U.S. Marine Corps is getting its first female rifleman and machine gunner later this year, service officials confirmed this week.

The two female enlisted Marines who have made lateral move requests to infantry jobs have been approved, Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Philip Kulczewski told Military.com. The news was first reported by Marine Corps Times. The Marine who applied to be an 0311 rifleman was a lance corporal, an official confirmed. The rank of the Marine approved to be an 0331 machine gunner is not clear. Kulczewski said the Corps is now in the process of meeting staffing requirements at the units that will receive the Marines.

In keeping with a Defense Department mandate and the Corps' own plan for integrating female troops into ground combat jobs, any infantry battalion with female members must also have a leadership cadre of at least two female officers or noncommissioned officers who have been at the unit for at least 90 days. Kulczewski said it's likely the Marines will not join their new units until December of this year. While the units that will get the first female grunts have been identified by the Marine Corps, Kulczewski said, they have not yet been publicly announced.

Marines with the Lioness Program refill their rifle magazines during the live-fire portion of their training at Camp Korean Village, Iraq​

The Marines who applied for infantry jobs are part of a small group of 233 women who were granted infantry military occupational specialties earlier this year after passing the Corps' enlisted infantry training at Camp Geiger, North Carolina, in order to participate in the service's research on integrating women into the previously closed units. While all the women are eligible to apply for infantry jobs, only the two enlisted Marines have done so to date. Kulczewski said a more senior female infantry captain had also applied for a lateral move to a newly opened unit, but the request was denied based on the staffing needs of the Marine Corps.

After the two Marines reach their new units, the service will continue to research their progress. Kulczewski said the Marine Corps had created a 25-year longitudinal study to "assess all aspects and possible impacts throughout implementation."

Marine Corps Approves First Two Women for Infantry Positions | Military.com

 

[waltky]

Draft needed to Combat New Threats...

Corps May Need 5,000 More Marines to Combat New Threats: Paxton
May 16, 2016 | The Marine Corps is projected to remain a force of 182,000 in coming years, but the four-star assistant commandant of the Marine Corps said new threats may require an increase of 5,000 troops or more.

Gen. John Paxton on Monday told reporters at the Sea Air Space convention near Washington, D.C., that while a force structure review four years ago found the Marine Corps wanted a force of 186,800 to properly execute its role, new threats and tensions may make the "floor" number even higher now. "That was before Ukraine, before Syria, before South China Sea, before Wikileaks," Paxton said. "To us, 186,800 is about the floor. So the number may [now] be north of there."

Commandant Gen. Robert Neller has said the Corps may cut conventional forces, including infantry troops, to make room for an increase in specialized skill sets such as cyber and electronic warfare. The commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, has estimated that these communities need to grow by up to 3,000 troops.

Marines with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, hike toward Range 101 on Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California.​

But Paxton said the Corps isn't counting on reducing its community of ground-pounders just yet. "We haven't taken a cut to conventional forces as a given," he said. "But we'd like to get north of 186,800. We believe that's the number we need to retain the conventional force capability which we need to go into Afghanistan, to do the counter-ISIL fight, to go around the world and also simultaneously develop some of those new skills and capabilities."

While the president's version of the defense budget keeps the Corps at 182,000, Congress may opt to give it at least part of the plus-up officials want to see. Several versions of next year's national defense budget bill include funding for 3,000 additional Marines, enough to pay for the cyber community increase the service hopes to realize.

Corps May Need 5,000 More Marines to Combat New Threats: Paxton | Military.com