Who Here Supports a Draft?

[Ravi]

Were it that simple eh. Gee, I served for 30 years and not once did I get "elected" to the service.

Fortunately, the military does not serve at "the whim of the people". It does serve at the whim of Congress (funding) and the President (Commander in Chief). In fact, I do not recall anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the military shall serve at the whim of the people.... Maybe in your country they do; are you from France?

And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!

 

[midcan5]

I find the modern attitude towards the draft troubling and a part of modernity that may eventually lead to a not good place. How is it, as an American citizen, one does not think in any sense that they too owe a little something to the place they live? It seems the only thing many want today is more money, the military is hard and the government sucks and taxes are bad but good lordie I sure do love the dollar bill! Anyone ever think it is the government taxes structure safety order military that provide the environment for the greed some cherish more than anything else. And I know Iraq is screwed up and nationalism not the best trait but....

And the idea that contractors will handle things is another scary idea.

 

[CSM]

I think he means the people since congress is the collective representative of the people.

But all aside, a draft would be retarded. If you're worried about your troop levels than sure. But the only thing a draft would solve is increasing troop levels. You then have to deal with morale, discipline, your NCO and CO corps. How can you expect to control an army that doesn't want to be an army? That's why volunteer armies work. Because people choose to join.

Ironically, people tend to forget that the military is made up of individuals....every single one of whom made a conscious decision to join the military VOLUNTARILY.

I am willing to bet that no more than two of those individuals even considered this particular poster's whims when enlisting.

 

[CSM]

And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!

Whim? Good thing we dont operate the government (never mind the military) on a whim. We hold elections and put people in office for certain periods of time. I suppose you really do wish we could vote today and change our minds tomorrow, but that is not the way it works.

 

[CSM]

And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!

By the way, it is my "whim" that all Democrats leave office tomorrow at 8:00 am EDT and be replaced by right wing Christian extremists. What do you think the odds are of that happening?

 

[The_Hammer]

Too true. As much as people love to say "Ah join the army and you'll just be another number" the truth is quite the opposite. The government isn't retarded, they know that getting a bunch of people in the army who don't want to be there is a bad idea. It's been a volunteer army since this nation got started. Drafts are only necessary when the country it self is on the verge of collapse or imminent danger.

Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.

IMHO I think that mentally as a group, we've gotten a lot weaker. In addition, society has allowed a pervasive attitude of either A) Someone else is gonna solve your problems or B) Feel bad about your problems but don't fix them. Lots of things went on back in the day that I don't think mentally most folks could survive.

Also WW2 was almost the last "good" war fought, at least on the allies side. So the mental attitude of the majority of soldiers was different then.

 

[Ravi]

By the way, it is my "whim" that all Democrats leave office tomorrow at 8:00 am EDT and be replaced by right wing Christian extremists. What do you think the odds are of that happening?

No, it's the collective whim and I hope you aren't really this stupid.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!

Overly simplistic. If you believe this then you are the stupid one.

 

[BrianH]

Overly simplistic. If you believe this then you are the stupid one.

Though this is the idea behind Congress and the President...I don't remember them serving the people or "at the whim" of the people in my lifetime.

 

[Ravi]

Really? Elections and impeachment have no meaning for you?

The government is for the people and of the people. The people are the most important part of our country. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to be.

Oh, on re-read, maybe you're actually agreeing with me.

 

[BrianH]

Really? Elections and impeachment have no meaning for you?

The government is for the people and of the people. The people are the most important part of our country. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to be.

Oh, on re-read, maybe you're actually agreeing with me.

Yeah, I agree that the premise of Congress and the President is to serve the people based on what the people want. For the people and by the people. Unfotunately, this is not true to it's fullest extent. If it were really true, we all would have voted on the war, or weather or not to raise, lower taxes, etc...

 

[Ravi]

Not a perfect system but imagine if we had to vote on everything. Nothing would ever get done.

 

[BrianH]

true true, but then again, that's my problem with our presidential election system even....the fact that our president can be elected by a 51% majority vote blows my mind. Is there any better way to keep the country divided (sarcasm). It's a bit extreme, but if it was up to me, I'd say the president would have to win with a 60% or more majority vote. I feel that if large issues were voted on, it would be ok. I wouldn't go on and vote for everytime the pres or cong. make a decision, but at least the big ones.

 

[Ravi]

Yuh, but that would mean Bush might be in office forever. What if it never approached a 60% vote? The old president would never leave.

 

[BrianH]

Yuh, but that would mean Bush might be in office forever. What if it never approached a 60% vote? The old president would never leave.

yeah, that would be a problem.

There would have to be something worked out where there was a position created (not VP or President) but a non-partisan position created to hold the office until a president was being elected (I'm just thinking this up). Someone who could not make big decisions on anything, but keep the country "operating" until a president could be elected. Just think if 2/3 of the population wanted a president, we'd all do alot less arguing...LOL

 

[mattskramer]

You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.

Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.

The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.

Based on articles like these (though they might be dated), it seems to me that the military is (or was) having a difficult time finding people willing to join. It is my opinion that prospective soldiers do not want to risk being sent to a war that they do not support.

I thought about joining the military but declined for the very reason. I don’t want to risk my death because someone else decided for me whether or not a particular war is in America’s best interest.

Still, I do what I can for the sake of the soldiers. I give care packages and letters and such.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/recruiting_5-12.html

Amid recruiting shortfalls and accusations of unethical behavior by some recruiters, the U.S. Army is spending millions on new programs designed to convince more young Americans to join the ranks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/03/MNGM2B50V61.DTL

For the first time in nearly a decade, the Marine Corps missed its monthly recruiting goal in January in what military officials said was the latest troubling indicator of the Iraq war's impact on the armed services.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/

The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060718/ai_n16540950

To reach its goals, the Army has deployed a thousand new recruiters and is offering enlistment bonuses for new recruits and those who persuade them to join up. But it also has lowered its recruiting standards -- so far only modestly -- by increasing the number of waivers for those who score low on an aptitude test, who have misdemeanor convictions or have medical problems.

 

[mattskramer]

I’m undecided about the draft. On one hand, I support it because I think that politicians would be much more thoughtful about whether or to vote for war if their sons or daughters might be called to go to such a war.

I have an idea. Imagine if there were a law that said something like: If a politician supports our going to war, then if he or she has a son or daughter able to serve, the son or daughter will be sent to the front lines of that war. Just imagine what the results would be.

 

[eots]

I Support We Draft Those That..support The War..as Long As They Are Under 65 And Fit

 

[mattskramer]

I Support We Draft Those That..support The War..as Long As They Are Under 65 And Fit

LOL. People will quickly change their minds.

 

[AllieBaba]

Based on articles like these (though they might be dated), it seems to me that the military is (or was) having a difficult time finding people willing to join. It is my opinion that prospective soldiers do not want to risk being sent to a war that they do not support.

I thought about joining the military but declined for the very reason. I don’t want to risk my death because someone else decided for me whether or not a particular war is in America’s best interest.

Still, I do what I can for the sake of the soldiers. I give care packages and letters and such.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/recruiting_5-12.html

Amid recruiting shortfalls and accusations of unethical behavior by some recruiters, the U.S. Army is spending millions on new programs designed to convince more young Americans to join the ranks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/03/MNGM2B50V61.DTL

For the first time in nearly a decade, the Marine Corps missed its monthly recruiting goal in January in what military officials said was the latest troubling indicator of the Iraq war's impact on the armed services.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/

The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060718/ai_n16540950

To reach its goals, the Army has deployed a thousand new recruiters and is offering enlistment bonuses for new recruits and those who persuade them to join up. But it also has lowered its recruiting standards -- so far only modestly -- by increasing the number of waivers for those who score low on an aptitude test, who have misdemeanor convictions or have medical problems.

You know, quoting a bunch of vague comments by anti-military groups doesn't exactly make your point.