Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Reinstitute the Draft?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Robert J McElwain, Feb 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Robert J McElwain

    Robert J McElwain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    Kansas City area
    Today, while driving around, I was listening to some recorded speeches by Ronald Reagan before he became President. Some of the things he was talking about made me think that this country will continue to spiral downward as a world power, both economically and militarily, unless we reinstitute the draft.

    Possibly a draft in a slightly different form. As I envision it, all young adults, male and female, would have to sign up for the draft, as before, but there would be an option for non-military service, say in something like the Peace Corps.

    But the further away we get from some kind of service to the nation, the less "ownership" our citizens will have in this country.

    Thoughts?

    Bob


     
  2. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    I agree that all should contribute to the country's well-being. But to force anyone to do so kind of kills the meaningfulness of it, don't you think?

    TC
     
  3. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,223
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Bad idea. I volunteered and did my time as infantry, but government has no right to require service in the way you describe.
     
  4. dolanp

    dolanp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Texas
    Seems to me things weren't all peachy the last time they used the draft.
     
  5. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    TX
    I believe that basic marksmanship and firearm-related skills should be taught in high school. "The more you know" kinda thing.

    IMO, any law-abiding citizen that holds down an honest job is serving his / her nation.
     
  6. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,211
    Location:
    Central Texas
    The problem is, today, rather than service to the nation such as fighting Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, a draftee, military or "Peace Corps" type, is much more likely to be doing service to some politician's own agenda in some stinking pestilential turd word dungheap, a dangerous US neighborhood, or on some pork-barrel project.

    I wouldn't trust the politicians of either party with unlimited manpower at their beck and call - look what they're doing with their (virtually) unlimited spending power.
     
  7. torpid

    torpid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,945
    Location:
    CA coast
    Why do Bob's posts have large type?

    :confused:
     
  8. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Because he selected a large font??
     
  9. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    If you have to force people to serve society then do you have a society worth saving?
     
  10. Seven High

    Seven High Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Young people are not now taught respect for the flag and country. Most are not taught to shoot firearms. I believe that a mandatory draft would accomplish both.
     
  11. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,037
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The Draft is a PERVERSION of the "Militia Duty"

    Militia service/duty proceeds from a fundamentally different basis than service in the standing military, which takes nothing away from the honorableness of that.

    Furthermore, the "all or nothing" conscientious objection method isn't right.

    One may legitimately object to a specific war on the basis of conscience, without necessarilly objecting to all war under all circumstances.

    ---------------------------

    What the original poster was seeking a way to promote a persons investment and ownership in their nation, and this is an important and valid point.

    I'm of 2 minds on this.

    Mind #1 suggests there is some truth in the idea that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

    Mind #2 observes that there are ways to show the horse how drinking is in his own self interest.

    Humans are critters of self interest, and associating the relationship between the privileges and duties of citizenship is largely a matter of education.

    THIS is what has gone south of late, and instituting a draft isn't really the right way to address the root issue.
     
  12. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    Horrible idea. Before i continue, let me state that i will be going into some form of service (thinking army) when i turn 18. To continue-

    No better way to make people unhappy than to force them to do something they dont want to.
    I think a draft, except in the most extreme occasions, is against the ideals of liberty.

    Furthermore, morale is usually very poor, thus reducing the forces effective fighting. We had a draft in vietnam (also in the world wars, but in world war 2 alot of people wanted to fight) and there are horror stories of platoons refusing to fight, etc etc.

    The romans had the right idea with a volunteer army.
     
  13. Malice

    Malice Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    370
    Location:
    San Antonio, Houston, depending on my mood
    All public high schools that I know of require "Physical Education" classes. Also known as "gym." The thing is, this physical education is nothing more than a coach throwing basketballs out of the closet into the gym and telling everyone to play nice. I did this for a year. I am one year out of high school, BTW.

    Would not that time be better served as a drawn-out, less intense Basic Training type of program that included firearms safety and marksmanship?
     
  14. spartacus2002

    spartacus2002 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,578
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
    why, oh why, do so many of the inhabitants of the land of the free insist that the government has a right and duty to enslave its citizens for a few year to serve der staat?

    This topic comes up over and over and over and over again with the same arguments on both sides.

    I did over a decade in uniform, and I came to this conclusion:

    I serve my country when I pay my taxes.
    I serve my country when I obey traffic laws.
    I serve my country when I do not engage in crime.
    I serve my country when I help a lady put into her car the heavy stuff she just bought at the store.
    I serve my country when I teach other folks how to properly shoot rifles.
    I serve my country when I raise my children to respect other folks and the law.

    I do NOT need to be enslaved for two years by the gummint to serve my country.

    If you think Iraq and domestic spying have split the country into two camps, the current dialogue would PALE in comparison to a draft. THAT would split the country like we haven't seen for almost 40 years.
     
  15. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,372
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The answer to that is, yes. If we say no, we are left with an argument that can lead to finding a society that produces terrorists and suicide bombers is better than one that doesn't.

    And we do, as a nation, have a right to call on our people for the defense of the nation (anyone who pays income tax, is after all being required to work at least part time for the government.)

    The question should be, "Do we need a draft? Can we efficiently use the manpower so generated?"

    And the answer to that is clearly, "No." For the draft to be fair, we'd have to draft everyone -- and we have about three million young people turning military age each year (excluding those not fit to serve.) To effectively use them, we need two years service -- that's an Army of six million privates.

    But to be fair, we also need to draft those who are somewhat older -- there's pool of 51 million people between 18 and 35, and they should serve their time, too. That kicks our Army up to somewhere between 12 and 15 million men and women.

    Anyone want to figure out what it will cost to feed, clothe, house, care for, train and equip an Army of 12 to 15 million men and women?
     
  16. MS .45

    MS .45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    Central Mississippi
    I certainly would not trust current polititions with the power to draft soldiers. If the nation was is true need of soldiers, I think that more than enough would sign up voluntarily(i.e. eminant, obvious threat to our nation). It is, however, a tough sell to a lot of people under current conditions.
     
  17. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,354
    Location:
    TX
    I pose you an interesting problem set:

    1. Will the draft cover both men and women? Some will oppose women. Women will sue to get in and some men will sue to get out if women are exempted.

    2. What about gays? If gays who announce their status are exempt, then quite a few nongays may say they are gay to avoid service. The stigma isn't that great today. After the war or they pass they age limit, they can go to a therapist or preacher and get converted. Gays will sue to get in and nongays may sue to get out if gays are exempt.

    These issues will certainly short circuit the minds of conservatives and may exempt them from the draft. :D
     
  18. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    I respectfully suggest that you are regurgitating something you have heard but have no first-hand knowledge of.

    I served in Vietnam. It happens that I enlisted, but most of the men with whom I served were drafted. Whether they were RA (Regular Army = enlisted) or US (draftees) made no difference with regard to either their competence or their morale. Many (a GREAT many) draftees were excellent soldiers, and there were enlistees who weren't worth the powder to blow them up with. Morale was largely a factor of the company commander and XO. If a unit had good leadership it generally had good morale. If the officers were idiots, morale took a dive.

    In general, there was no massive objection to the draft, either before we went in or after. It was an accepted fact. It was just something we lived with. Nobody back then viewed it as a massive infringement on our liberties. The only real problems were because some people found loopholes that allowed them to avoid being drafted, like the football hero who became a teacher for three years so he wouldn't be drafted, then experienced a career change as soon as he wasn't at the top of the list. But those who dodged the draft didn't do so out of any lofty philosophical ideal that the draft was "evil" or "enslavement." I went to school with these guys. They dodged the draft because they felt they were better than other people and therefore they just plain didn't want to do.

    Conceptually, I had no problem with being required to serve then, and I don't now. I do have problems with the politicians using the armed forces for purposes other than the defense of our country, but that's a problem whether or not there is a draft, and it should be addressed and rectified regardless of whether or not a draft is reinstituted.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2006
  19. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,372
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I don't see how we can avoid drafting women if we go back to the draft, just as I can't see how we can avoid drafting everyone.

    One of the great problems in Viet Nam was that we didn't draft enough people. A young man who turned 18 in the late '50s (when there was no shooting war) had about twice as much chance of being drafted as his younger brother who turned 18 ten years later - when there was a shooting war.

    We simply had a huge surplus of manpower, and didn't need more than a small fraction of those of military age -- so that's what we drafted, a small fraction. Those who were drafted regarded as unfair and they were right.

    If we start the draft, we have to draft everyone.

    Not at all -- the problem is gay activists in service, not individual gay people. We don't want a gay or feminist military -- we want a military where the mission, not politics is the focus.
     
  20. carnaby

    carnaby Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,356
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA
    A draft is in complete contradiction to our supposed American notions of liberty. No thanks. If the USA can't get by with a volunteer army, then too bad for us.

    I'm with one of the earlier posters who wrote:
    Especially true if they're getting a "public" education. Train them how to defend the country, and not to be GFW's. A rifleman behind every blade of grass will suffice.
     
  21. wingman

    wingman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Location:
    texas
    Ditto;, I served in Vietnam, many good men were drafted, they bitched
    but got the job done, some were natural leaders who stayed for 20+.

    The draft is needed simply those who thumbs down on the draft don't want
    to go. We have a nation now of tv watching, cell phone using folks who never
    had discipline and we are paying the price, and no I am not saying "all" but enough
    to cause concern to the freedom and future of this country.
    Draft, discipline, two years of service which will give us a semi-trained
    force in times of "serious" need. If someone cannot give two years to this
    country then in fact it would be much better for them to relocate.:cuss:
     
  22. Thefabulousfink

    Thefabulousfink Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    I would like to see two years of manditory service after highschool and before college. This could be in the military, police, postal service, or any of the other government services. This would help prepare students for the real world, and give students who wouldn't go to college job oportunities with possibilities for advancement.
     
  23. wingman

    wingman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Location:
    texas
    Excellent so we just shut the door and turn out the lights good thinking.:rolleyes:
     
  24. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    Thats correct.

    Thank you for adding you own input though. Horrro stories are still that- stories. However it does not mean they are completely false.

    We agree here though
     
  25. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,372
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    When the lead is flying, there is no "equivallent service." You'll have what we had in Viet Nam -- every kid with some pull will get a cushy job, and only the unfortunates will go into combat.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page