Should the draft be reinstated?

[ronaldo]

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

I think this is a good idea. What do ypu all think?

http://wemple.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/draft-wont-come-back-but-should-it/

[skatman]

Let's say you have a dog.
Do you prevent the dog from running away by cutting off its legs?

I have feeling that these guys on the capitol hill are so detached from any logic what so ever, that they constantly compete in who can propose a more stupid idea than the guy before him! And I'm paying for all of this shit!

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I doubt their kids would be selected regardless even if there was a draft. And they certainly wouldn't be going to war if they did...

[Gon]

How about each time congress votes to go to war, ten congressmen who voted yes would be picked at random and placed in actual front line units for five years or until the war is over, whichever comes first.

That should get them thinking whether the war is necessary in the first place, and if it is, how to be rid of it as soon as possible and let peace continue.

[Aurora]

I doubt their kids would be selected regardless even if there was a draft. And they certainly wouldn't be going to war if they did...
Good point , The draft wasnt able to grab Bush,Cheney,Rove,Hastert,Libbey,Frists,Lott,Delay for Vietnam. Everyone of these "Hero"s never had to serve. Everyone one of these "hero's was pushing to send troops into Iraq for missing WMDs. War doesnt bother these types as long as someone else is getting shot for their misguided policys.

[groverat]

There was one?

[SpamSandwich]

I'd say it should already be mandatory service for your kids if you are a public servant. Mandatory.

[Aurora]

Sounds good at first but wouldnt hold up in the Supreme court. How about this the ones who take us into war without first being attacked should be the ones on the very front lines. I can just see Cheney shooting our own guys by mistake. Old farts sending young men to die for their mistakes.

[SpamSandwich]

If it's your commitment to public service, then you need to take the risks as well as reap the rewards of power.

[midwinter]

How about each time congress votes to go to war, ten congressmen who voted yes would be picked at random and placed in actual front line units for five years or until the war is over, whichever comes first.

That should get them thinking whether the war is necessary in the first place, and if it is, how to be rid of it as soon as possible and let peace continue.

I like it.

[Gon]

It shouldn't need to be said but draft is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. You could ship the public servants themselves out, because they volunteered, but not their family like SpamSandwich says.

To clarify, I don't exactly suggest that old untrained guys are sent to a rifle fight, but they would serve to the best capability they can. They could be maintenance men. Key thing is they would be living in same room with men who have a real risk of losing life or limb because of the decision these guys made. If it really was the right choice for the right reasons, should be no problem. There would be one congressman in each of ten frontline units that are in hardest and most frequent fights so the Congress would have a kind of a hotline to the hotspots and what things are like there. If the choice was not right or not done for the right reasons... I think they might actually become better people for being there.

[Placebo]

Let's say you have a dog.
Do you prevent the dog from running away by cutting off its legs?

That is an absolutely terrible analogy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[midwinter]

There was one?

One what? A policy? You, more than anyone here, must surely be able to answer that, Groverat. You were a strong supporter of the war in Iraq.

[FormerLurker]

Lighten up, Francis.


;)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0083131/quotes

[midwinter]

Lighten up, Francis.


;)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0083131/quotes

Edit: There should simply be an emoticon for "I didn't get a joke and made an ass of myself."

[FormerLurker]

<sigh>

I was quoting from the movie, Stripes.

So was groverat

Cruiser: I joined the army 'cause my father and my brother were in the army. I figured I better join before I got drafted.
Sergeant Hulka: Son, there ain't no draft no more.
Cruiser: There was one?

[Powerdoc]

In the spirit the draft was may be a good thing : everybody is involved in the defense of the nation. You don't push other, to do, what you don't want to do, you and your family, yourself.

BTW, in practice (I speak here for France : I was one of the last to be drafted), the draft was the kingdom of inequity. Every one try to get an advantage, in order to avoid draft, or to have a nice and a cool place. The draft betrayed the principle of equity and solidarity. Futhermore, the army did not have enough money to have so many soldiers, so there was many exemptions. And many times people who avoided drafting, have an advantage over people who where drafted, because they loosed one year in their universitary course.
The draft was becoming a joke, and it was time to stop it.
My personnal souvenir on my draft, is that I spent one year of my year, to my medical job, for nearly free, and that I have to make a loan, in order to continue to pay my appartment. The first month of the draft, was in a medical academy near libourne, and it was indeed a different experience. But after that, I spent eleve months in a hospital doing exactly the same job for free. We had very little holidays : three times less, than carreer soldiers. It was also obvious, that there was a clear line, between carreer soldiers and drafted ones.
So what is my personnal opinion on the draft : I losed 15 000 $ for helping to the practice of lipossucion in a military hospital

[jimmac]

I was number 100 in the lottery when I was 18. Which means you go get your physical and you are inducted. Since the Vietnam war was still on going when this happened I was so relieved when they ended the draft a few weeks later. It was ended basically because of the many deaths in a immoral war that shouldn't have happened. It's not right that we reenter that babaric practise for a similar situation. The thing to do in the future is question the motives of the president if necessary if it doesn't seem right. That's our right after all!

That way we won't find ourselves in an endless war where we're the loser because the point isn't really winning. The point to these kind of wars is to keep them going.

[midwinter]

<sigh>

I was quoting from the movie, Stripes.

So was groverat

Edited to reflect my idiocy.

[SDW2001]

I'd say it should already be mandatory service for your kids if you are a public servant. Mandatory.

Oh, that would be great. Then we'd have congressmen reluctant to go to war, perhaps when it's urgent we do so. Good thinking. :no:

[SDW2001]

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

I think this is a good idea. What do ypu all think?

http://wemple.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/draft-wont-come-back-but-should-it/


Reinistating the draft at present is an absolutely stupid idea. Secondly, unless we face a "massive" opponent in a war, it will never happen. The public would never tolerate it.

Military commanders have said that the quality of soldier we have today is far superior to that of 30 years ago, when we had a draft. The all volunteer system has worked and worked well. The only reason to reinstate the draft would be multiple full scale wars. My understanding is that we are currently equipped to fight two major theatre wars simultaneously (i.e. Iran and North Korea, for example). However, if we still had troops deployed in Iraq and we went to war with those two nations, we'd have a potential problem.

If you extrapolate that, a draft would be needed if we reqiuired more than, say, 750,000 troops deployed. It's clear we don't need one now and that Rangel's idea is pure politics. It sounds good to say that it would alleviate the supposed problem of rich white boys not serving. That's all this is about: Racial and socioeconomic politics.

[SpamSandwich]

Oh, that would be great. Then we'd have congressmen reluctant to go to war, perhaps when it's urgent we do so. Good thinking. :no:

If that was the case, then it apparently wasn't urgent enough. ;)

[SDW2001]

If that was the case, then it apparently wasn't urgent enough. ;)

Huh? So you're saying that it wouldn't adversely affect their ability to defend the nation? I think it would. It introduces an emotional variable into a situtation where one absolutely does not want emotion to play a part. Sure, it sounds great to you because you think the Iraq war is "unnecessary."

What about other situations? Basically what you're saying is that if there is any debate about whether or not we should go to war, then we shouldn't go. Besides that, you'd be injecting persoal bias into national security decisions. That would be suicide. Let me ask you: Should the generals that order operations have to pick up a rifle and go fight on the front lines? I see no difference.

[midwinter]

Let me ask you: Should the generals that order operations have to pick up a rifle and go fight on the front lines? I see no difference.

I had no idea generals were hatched from eggs, fully-formed and ready to give orders..

[SDW2001]

I had no idea generals were hatched from eggs, fully-formed and ready to give orders..

Ae you implying they have combat experience? I'd bet you most of them have very little.

[FormerLurker]

^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, MY....

Yeah, they all just got really, really good scores on the General Qualification Exam or something....

:rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, MY....

Yeah, they all just got really, really good scores on the General Qualification Exam or something....

:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I get the humor, but I don't think a lot of them have real combat experience...especially experience where their lives were actually in danger. I have a friend who is in the Army JAG. His Dad was a full Colonel and was very close to being promoted to General before he retired. I know he never got close to combat. I realize that's only one example (and an anecdotal one at that), but my point still remains.

[SDW2001]

JAG Corp members don't even have to go to basic.

It's probably the cushiest deal in the armed services.

They do go to basic. It's a reduced version in terms of length. That said, his father was not in the JAG.

[SDW2001]

Yeah. (http://www.goarmy.com/jag/training.jsp)

But it seems hardly comparable to what regular army recruits have to go through.

I'm not sure I see what you mean. Are you comparing it to combat training? That's not the point anyway....I was referencing his father.

[FormerLurker]

Well, who's got the Google-Fu to answer the question?

Can someone find the career summaries of higher-ranking Generals?

[jimmac]

Oh, that would be great. Then we'd have congressmen reluctant to go to war, perhaps when it's urgent we do so. Good thinking. :no:

Well maybe they should draft guys like you instead? :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

Huh? So you're saying that it wouldn't adversely affect their ability to defend the nation? I think it would. It introduces an emotional variable into a situtation where one absolutely does not want emotion to play a part. Sure, it sounds great to you because you think the Iraq war is "unnecessary."

What about other situations? Basically what you're saying is that if there is any debate about whether or not we should go to war, then we shouldn't go. Besides that, you'd be injecting persoal bias into national security decisions. That would be suicide. Let me ask you: Should the generals that order operations have to pick up a rifle and go fight on the front lines? I see no difference.

If war is really that necessary, you should be prepared to send your own family to fight and die for it. What makes you or a politician so damned special? War is the last resort, not the first.

Defense of the nation is everyone's responsibility, right?

[SDW2001]

If war is really that necessary, you should be prepared to send your own family to fight and die for it. What makes you or a politician so damned special? War is the last resort, not the first.

Oh cut the cliched bullshit. Really...stop and think: You mean to tell me that you want a Congressman to be overcome with emotion concerning his own family whilst making decisions that directly impact the national security of the United States? It's not about anyone being "special." That's a strawman and you know it. What I'm taking issue with is required service for their children. It's a patently stupid idea. You'd have people voting no out of mere personal interest...or at least you could. Even a draft is a better idea than that.

[SDW2001]

Well maybe they should draft guys like you instead? :lol:

umm...why is that funny again?

[midwinter]

You mean to tell me that you want a Congressman to be overcome with emotion concerning his own family whilst making decisions that directly impact the national security of the United States?

I would hope that they would be deeply invested in such decisions.

[sammi jo]

I would hope that they would be deeply invested in such decisions.
The draft? Well, how about a compulsory 2 years 'national service' for everyone? It could be military or civilian service.. there's plenty out there that needs fixing. I'd be for that, provided everyone was in the same boat... and people of wealth and privilege couldnt weasel their way out, as they usually can, and do.

[SpamSandwich]

Unfortunately, money and power talks...and you know the rest of it.

[SpamSandwich]

Oh cut the cliched bullshit. Really...stop and think: You mean to tell me that you want a Congressman to be overcome with emotion concerning his own family whilst making decisions that directly impact the national security of the United States? It's not about anyone being "special." That's a strawman and you know it. What I'm taking issue with is required service for their children. It's a patently stupid idea. You'd have people voting no out of mere personal interest...or at least you could. Even a draft is a better idea than that.

Here's some clichéd bullshit. "Let's bring back the draft."

[midwinter]

The draft? Well, how about a compulsory 2 years 'national service' for everyone? It could be military or civilian service.. there's plenty out there that needs fixing. I'd be for that, provided everyone was in the same boat... and people of wealth and privilege couldnt weasel their way out, as they usually can, and do.

I'm for that, as well.

[SpamSandwich]

You're for wealthy privileged folks weaseling their way out? Face it, neither you nor I have the inside track to make this fantasy world scenario stick. Influence always wins out over justice.

[midwinter]

You're for wealthy privileged folks weaseling their way out? Face it, neither you nor I have the inside track to make this fantasy world scenario stick. Influence always wins out over justice.

Speak for yourself. I'm one of the most powerful people in the country. ;)

[sammi jo]

I'm for that, as well.

And when it comes down to the nasty stuff, ie fighting a war, then anyone should be expected to be posted in the dangerous places.

[MacRR]

Speak for yourself. I'm one of the most powerful people in the country. ;)
Oh really? Then you must work for me. Now go get my coffee ;).

[SDW2001]

I would hope that they would be deeply invested in such decisions.

Well, of course. But do you want them to be torn between their loyalty and love for their families and defending the country? I sure don't.

[midwinter]

Well, of course. But do you want them to be torn between their loyalty and love for their families and defending the country? I sure don't.

I would hope that they would be just as torn either way. If they're not, we need to find better politicians.

[SDW2001]

I would hope that they would be just as torn either way. If they're not, we need to find better politicians.

I agree they shouldn't take these decisions of war and peace lightly. No argument there. That said, I don't think it's reasonable to think that there is no difference between a carefully considered decision on the topic and one that involves a representative's own children.

[midwinter]

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to think that there is no difference between a carefully considered decision on the topic and one that involves a representative's own children.

I think it is completely reasonable. If my elected representatives feel it is so urgent that my children be sent to war, I would expect them to feel the same way about their own children. If they are more torn about it with their own children than they are with someone else's, the conflict obviously isn't as critical as it could be.

I want representatives in government, not philosopher kings for whom everything is some abstract bit of thinkery.

[MacRR]

You mean like all of us?

;)



I want representatives in government, not philosopher kings for whom everything is some abstract bit of thinkery.

[SDW2001]

I think it is completely reasonable. If my elected representatives feel it is so urgent that my children be sent to war, I would expect them to feel the same way about their own children. If they are more torn about it with their own children than they are with someone else's, the conflict obviously isn't as critical as it could be.

I want representatives in government, not philosopher kings for whom everything is some abstract bit of thinkery.


Well, we just disagree then. I don't want my representatives to be making decisions based on what is in their personal/family interests.

[skatman]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I know, but I'm not.

[MacRR]

That should extend to financial decisions especially, but since it doesn't and that is heartily abused, let's just throw in family too. At least war would have to be worth it, and it would get shit canned far before it turned into vanity fucking fair with a huge side of ego.

Well, we just disagree then. I don't want my representatives to be making decisions based on what is in their personal/family interests.

[SDW2001]

That should extend to financial decisions especially, but since it doesn't and that is heartily abused, let's just throw in family too. At least war would have to be worth it, and it would get shit canned far before it turned into vanity fucking fair with a huge side of ego.

That's one possiblity. Another is that we vote to end a war based on personal biases rather than what is in the best interests of the country...and/or what that rep's constituients want.

[SpamSandwich]

Well, we just disagree then. I don't want my representatives to be making decisions based on what is in their personal/family interests.

Then you don't understand human action or human nature. All people behave in ways that benefit their own interests. The founders of this country understood this---that people are not angels and are not to be trusted. Checks and balances, anyone? Separation of church and state, anyone?

I hate to state the obvious, but your representatives exist to make decisions about you that directly benefit them. It's why they got elected. They rang the right bell and the voters salivated for them, and as long as they keep ringing that bell their rewards are huge.

[MacRR]

Can you expound upon this? I am not sure what you mean to vote to end a war?

Do you mean like the election just passed? One could surmise that the dems won control of congress for that very reason. I mean, to me it sounds like you just described the election last November.


That's one possibility. Another is that we vote to end a war based on personal biases rather than what is in the best interests of the country...and/or what that rep's constituents want.

[SDW2001]

Then you don't understand human action or human nature. All people behave in ways that benefit their own interests. The founders of this country understood this---that people are not angels and are not to be trusted. Checks and balances, anyone? Separation of church and state, anyone?

I hate to state the obvious, but your representatives exist to make decisions about you that directly benefit them. It's why they got elected. They rang the right bell and the voters salivated for them, and as long as they keep ringing that bell their rewards are huge.


You're way off base here. I'm not here to debate human nature with you. I'm merely saying that mandatory military service for the children of Congressmen is not a smart idea because it makes it more likely that they will base a decision on personal motives rather than those of their constituients.

I disagree with your second point. Representatives should act in the interests of their constituients and the nation, not out of self interest.

I also disagree about the motives of our founding fathers. They understood power shouldn't be too highly concentrated hence the system of checks and balances in our government. Power corrupts people...people aren't corrupt by nature. If anything, the founding fathers felt just the opposite of what you've stated. They believed that the government should serve the people, not the other wya around. They believed in the knowledge and abilities of the American people. They didn't insert checks and balances into the system because people "weren't angels."

[SpamSandwich]

You're way off base here. I'm not here to debate human nature with you. I'm merely saying that mandatory military service for the children of Congressmen is not a smart idea because it makes it more likely that they will base a decision on personal motives rather than those of their constituients.

I disagree with your second point. Representatives should act in the interests of their constituients and the nation, not out of self interest.

I also disagree about the motives of our founding fathers. They understood power shouldn't be too highly concentrated hence the system of checks and balances in our government. Power corrupts people...people aren't corrupt by nature. If anything, the founding fathers felt just the opposite of what you've stated. They believed that the government should serve the people, not the other wya around. They believed in the knowledge and abilities of the American people. They didn't insert checks and balances into the system because people "weren't angels."

Some tobacco to stick in your pipe and smoke:
The Founding Fathers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html)

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) This quote came from Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1788. I believe men make up government as well as the citizenry, therefore, my statement stands.

Another great quote from the same document, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. "

[SDW2001]

Some tobacco to stick in your pipe and smoke:
The Founding Fathers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html)

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) This quote came from Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1788. I believe men make up government as well as the citizenry, therefore, my statement stands.

Another great quote from the same document, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. "

Uh, no. Nice try. I'm not going to let you setup your big strawman and watch you knock it down. Besides, one Hamilton quote is not going to convince me that our founding fathers didn't have enormous faith in the people themselves.