To draft or not to draft

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
It hasn't changed. Who said it did? What does Viet Nam have to do with anything?

I stated

The wording and intent of "conscription" is vague and subject to inerpretation in the constitution that HAS NOT changed since it's inception let alone since Viet Nam.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_drft.html

You said that there "may be" a constitutional issue with the draft, that's why I brought up Vietnam. I just wondered how there was a constitutional issue that wasn't addressesd with the Vietnam draft.

Thanks for the link.

It seems that the Founding Fathers didn't fully think this one out, but did obviously anticipate the need of our country to protect itself.

It seems to me that the alternative of public service would help keep the draft constitutional, providing another option for conscientious objectors.

 

[NATO AIR]

i mean that looking at the draft now should be approached with long term vision, as a long term solution for america in many areas, not just a short term fix for iraq.

1-3 years goes something like this

3 years for army and marines

2 years for coast guard

1 1/2 for air force and navy

navy and air force training pipelines are much less than army/marines

a sailor can go to two month boot camp, three week training school and be out in the fleet within three months of going to boot camp. around the same for air force, if you're all thinking the MOS/rate i'm thinking (undesignated). if you want more training from the navy (say to be an electronics tech/intelligence analyst/submariner), you're in for 3 years or more.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
i mean that looking at the draft now should be approached with long term vision, as a long term solution for america in many areas, not just a short term fix for iraq.

1-3 years goes something like this

3 years for army and marines

2 years for coast guard

1 1/2 for air force and navy

navy and air force training pipelines are much less than army/marines

a sailor can go to two month boot camp, three week training school and be out in the fleet within three months of going to boot camp. around the same for air force, if you're all thinking the MOS/rate i'm thinking (undesignated). if you want more training from the navy (say to be an electronics tech/intelligence analyst/submariner), you're in for 3 years or more.

Specifics aside, to draft or not to draft?

I'm going to start a poll, what should the options be?

1. Mandatory two years of service between the ages of 18-24, with the option of public or armed service?

2. Mandatory two years of service between the ages of 18-24, with the option of public service only if you qualify as a conscientious objector.

3. No draft, all service voluntary as it is now.


Can't think of anymore options here...

 

[HGROKIT]

3. you either want to serve or you don't.

I never thought I would say that.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
i mean that looking at the draft now should be approached with long term vision, as a long term solution for america in many areas, not just a short term fix for iraq.

1-3 years goes something like this

3 years for army and marines

2 years for coast guard

1 1/2 for air force and navy

navy and air force training pipelines are much less than army/marines

a sailor can go to two month boot camp, three week training school and be out in the fleet within three months of going to boot camp. around the same for air force, if you're all thinking the MOS/rate i'm thinking (undesignated). if you want more training from the navy (say to be an electronics tech/intelligence analyst/submariner), you're in for 3 years or more.

I could go on ad infinitum with your proposed scenarios. Just consider this. Given your short "pipline" (which surprise! I disagree with ), you know that when a green recruit first gets to the fleet, squadron, brigade or what ever, it is probably another close to six months before they are "fully" qualified to perform their function alone and unaided. That being said, we are still talkinn a six to nine month training investment (very expensive) for potentially a one year return given your 18 mos. scenario.

Just not practical with anything less than a four year commitment looking at it strictly from a business perspective utilizing a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
I could go on ad infinitum with your proposed scenarios. Just consider this. Given your short "pipline" (which surprise! I disagree with ), you know that when a green recruit first gets to the fleet, squadron, brigade or what ever, it is probably another close to six months before they are "fully" qualified to perform their function alone and unaided. That being said, we are still talkinn a six to nine month training investment (very expensive) for potentially a one year return given your 18 mos. scenario.

Just not practical with anything less than a four year commitment looking at it strictly from a business perspective utilizing a cost/benefit analysis.

Very informative, coming from someone(me) with no military background.

So I suppose that some argue that we should have a draft simply based on this cost/benefit analysis?

Troubling...

But equally troubling is the idea of not having a military large enough to protect our interests.

Any more ideas for options before I make this poll?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by nycflasher
So I suppose that some argue that we should have a draft simply based on this cost/benefit analysis?

No, that is my argument to Nato's postion regarding the short of amount of time in his argument. Go back and review :

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
No, that is my argument to Nato's postion regarding the short of amount of time in his argument. Go back and review :

I understand/read that. But, furthermore, if two years of mandated service wouldn't solve our problems, then what's the alternative? 4 years of required service?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I understand/read that. But, furthermore, if two years of mandated service wouldn't solve our problems, then what's the alternative? 4 years of required service?

That is what it is at now. I think the Army and Navy have some shorter deals for specific programs. I also think that during Nam, the draft was only two years. Train 'em and send 'em to the grinder.

Not a good scenario IMO.

Guys that got drafted, generally had a crappy attitude and were mal contents - hence my contention. if they wanna serve great - if not then don't make them.

To me, it is a matter of patriotism and loyalty and conscription is not going to instill that in anyone that does not already have it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I'm a 22 year old liberal and fully support the idea of a national permanent draft. We should all defend our country if necessary and our leaders would be much less reluctant to start unnecessary wars if they had a personal interest.

 

[NATO AIR]

alright we'll make it 4 years for all services then

i apologize, it was around 2-3 a.m. my time thinking that concept up.

4 years is better than 2 and they can earn full G.I. bill benefits, that way every adult 18-24 year old could have money to go to college if they so chose after their national service.

 

[007]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Draft everyone that comes of age. Let em choose miltary or public sevice. The military can then further weed out the ones that they don't want. People have died for this cause---maybe a little token giving to ones' country will make people appreciate it and get em outta thier little shells and see what the world is really like.

My God... I'm still a little shakey here... I mean I'm still a little groggy from fainting... but I agree with dillo.... maaaaaaaaan what a shock.

 

[007]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
I could go on ad infinitum with your proposed scenarios. Just consider this. Given your short "pipline" (which surprise! I disagree with ), you know that when a green recruit first gets to the fleet, squadron, brigade or what ever, it is probably another close to six months before they are "fully" qualified to perform their function alone and unaided. That being said, we are still talkinn a six to nine month training investment (very expensive) for potentially a one year return given your 18 mos. scenario.

Just not practical with anything less than a four year commitment looking at it strictly from a business perspective utilizing a cost/benefit analysis.

Yeah I don't know what the "pipeline" is either. Is that where you get in line to get your toke?

I spent eight years in the Air Force. I enlisted like everyone else, since no one has ever been drafted into the Air Force, in late October 1979. I was an Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, F-16. My training was long. I kind of agree with you HGROKIT about the length of which one should be obligated to active duty after all that training.

Here's the deal... if you wait to be drafted, then you don't get your choice of jobs. You get whatever shit job the military needs you to do. Period. But you're only obligated to two years of active duty with a six years commitment.

Now if you choose to "enlist", then you get to pick one of the GOOD jobs. But you'll have to serve at least one four year term, and that shouldn't be a problem. If you've made the decision to enlist, then you're ready to do the four years. Believe me, they go by fast.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I just had a question. I noticed that no one has mentioned anything about school. If people are in college whether it be part time or full time, would they be exempt from the draft?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I just had a question. I noticed that no one has mentioned anything about school. If people are in college whether it be part time or full time, would they be exempt from the draft?

Speaking as a mother with 3 children, 2 boys in college I certainly hope not. THAT was the failure of Vietnam!

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I would have to say that I would be more against a draft if it involved taking people out of school. A person would have to start all over again once they got out of service. I'm 23 and I would be pissed knowing that all the time I put into school I would have to take over, because face it, if you miss a couple of years or more of school, you will forget a lot of what you have learned, that and some courses will be outdated. No, I disagree with removing students from school. I also disagree with sending people into a war that they do not believe in. That's why it's better as a volunteer basis. People who believe in the war/cause can enlist and those who don't can at least show their support for the soldiers in some way.

Now, as far as enforcing more public service, that could be a good idea as long as it doesn't take precedence over school or a job, IMO.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I would have to say that I would be more against a draft if it involved taking people out of school. A person would have to start all over again once they got out of service. I'm 23 and I would be pissed knowing that all the time I put into school I would have to take over, because face it, if you miss a couple of years or more of school, you will forget a lot of what you have learned, that and some courses will be outdated. No, I disagree with removing students from school. I also disagree with sending people into a war that they do not believe in. That's why it's better as a volunteer basis. People who believe in the war/cause can enlist and those who don't can at least show their support for the soldiers in some way.

Now, as far as enforcing more public service, that could be a good idea as long as it doesn't take precedence over school or a job, IMO.

As I said, have two sons in or entering college. Both have given thought to entering after college. If there was a draft, which I think unlikely, for them to remain in school, it means someone else with less going for them would take their place, (because the government is going to take a certain # regardless), which would be massively unfair.

If conscription is to work, it has to be fair.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I just really disagree with taking students out of school. These are people who want to go some where with their lives that does not involve the military (or it could way down in the future). Why take them out when they already have direction, motivation, ambition on goals?

And again, IMO, I think forcing people to fight in a war they do not believe in is a bad idea. I think that was also a contributing factor to Vietnam.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I just really disagree with taking students out of school. These are people who want to go some where with their lives that does not involve the military (or it could way down in the future). Why take them out when they already have direction, motivation, ambition on goals?

And again, IMO, I think forcing people to fight in a war they do not believe in is a bad idea. I think that was also a contributing factor to Vietnam.

Most important thing about a draft, it's a duty to serve. There is conscientious objector status, pretty hard to come by. Could opt out to another country also. Just don't come back.

There is no reason some poor kid should have to take the place of another for convenience. Now, I don't want my kids drafted, let me make that clear. But, if the conscription comes, they would do what they should.

Another thing, I am not paying for the kids' college. They are doing it on their own. Not easily, but they are doing it. If they didn't have the drive, they would be in the ranks of those you want taking your place, as we qualify financially as 'poor.' However, they do have the drive, and would be a better choice for service than those who don't. Or do you just think the poor should be 'cannon fodder?'

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Not at all. I agree with you that the lower class or poor should not be the ones automatically joining the military (though often times that is the case).

I just feel that people (including lower class because let's be honest with ourselves, not just upper and middle class kids are going to college) who are going to college should not have that disrupted because they are already doing a service for our country by bettering themselves and by wanting to achieve more through education.

I currently go to community college to get all my GED's out of the way for a cheaper price than at a university and pay for the courses, books and supplies myself along with any costs that my vehicle may incur taking me to and from school and I would consider myself and my family somewhere around lower middle class to upper lower class. And I know personally that I would not want to be taken out school when I am trying to do something for myself and my family by educating myself.

If I wanted to gain something from the military, I would have joined a long time ago, but for me, the military is something I just don't want to be a part of. It is not the career or job path I wish to take considering that currently I have an option other job/career paths right now. And even if I didn't have an option, the military still would not be the right choice for me.

There is nothing wrong with the people who choose to join out of their free will, but it shouldn't be a forced issue.

If anything, maybe that should tell the country/government something, if people are not enlisting in high numbers anymore. I'm assuming that is what the problem is or else a draft wouldn't be a consideration.