Reinstitute the Draft?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
Really...? :confused:

Funny, that's not how I remember the 60s and early 70s :uhoh:
 
I'd love a draft.
I'd love to see all the right wing chickenhawks who are always clammoring for war with the world have to pick up a rifle and stand a post.
 
Ooo another of my favorite hypocrisy filled topics in these circles. We have Democrats who ask for the government to butt out people's private lives, but then want to pick my pocket for welfare. We have republicans who ask for liberty and freedom and cry second amendment, then feel they know better than me how I should spend a few years of my life. As usual it comes down to people wanting to legislate what they like be it moral, ethical, religious, or a job, not whats right or just.

My stance is much simpler, you can't call yourself the land of the free if you have compulsory work programs. I'm thrilled you love the military and that it changed your life in profound ways, but don't try to force it on others. On a more practical level I don't think you'd wind up with a better military for it, only extra military spending that I don't want to pay for. If there were a true crisis that required more military, I have confidence in people of my age group to stand up and take action. If they are not doing that perhaps its the cause, and not the people, that is the problem.
 
The draft is needed simply those who thumbs down on the draft don't want
to go.
Click to expand...
I usually like to keep a civil tone, but here I say Bull???? :mad:

Tell that to the German soldiers of WWII. Every man needs to decide for himself if the cause is worthy. I think the current cause is worthy and if was 20 years old and I didn't have a wife and two kids, I'd sign up. However, it is not for the government to say which causes are worthy and which are not, and then force me to agree.

I draw the line at a draft. If the government ever tries to draft my son, I will consider that grounds for armed insurection.:fire:
 
Ooo another of my favorite hypocrisy filled topics in these circles. We have Democrats who ask for the government to butt out people's private lives, but then want to pick my pocket for welfare. We have republicans who ask for liberty and freedom and cry second amendment, then feel they know better than me how I should spend a few years of my life. As usual it comes down to people wanting to legislate what they like be it moral, ethical, religious, or a job, not whats right or just.

My stance is much simpler, you can't call yourself the land of the free if you have compulsory work programs. I'm thrilled you love the military and that it changed your life in profound ways, but don't try to force it on others. On a more practical level I don't think you'd wind up with a better military for it, only extra military spending that I don't want to pay for. If there were a true crisis that required more military, I have confidence in people of my age group to stand up and take action. If they are not doing that perhaps its the cause, and not the people, that is the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there, Soybomb. :)
 
crazed_ss said:
I'd love a draft.
I'd love to see all the right wing chickenhawks who are always clammoring for war with the world have to pick up a rifle and stand a post.
Click to expand...

Yes, because all those hundreds of thousands of volunteer service men and women are all just mindless drones with no political leanings whatsoever...

:scrutiny: :uhoh:
 
while i am totally against the draft ever, under any circumstances,

i suggest reading this page for some interesting myth debunking about the oft-used examples of draft from the vietnam war.


they include:

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.
Click to expand...

and

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.
Click to expand...
 
Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.
Click to expand...

You've got a slight problem there -- the Armed Forces stopped accepting volunteers early in WWII. The reason was to produce a steady, dependable flow of men tailored to fit the Armed Forces needs and abilities to house, clothe, train and equip them.

So unless 2/3s of the men who served in WWII signed up in the first few months of the war, that's got to be wrong.

As for Viet Nam, most of the men in my company (A-1/61 IN) were draftees.
 
I say reinstitute the draft if neccessary for the defense of our nation and the current volunteer force couldn't get the job done and leave it at that. If someone brought the fight to our doorstep and it was needed, I'd volunteer. I don't however see the need to put my life on the line to support anyone's political agenda or to defend someone elses soil.
 
I am ambivalent about a draft.

On the one hand, as a veteran, the all-volunteer model works, and is working right now even if it has some difficulties. I wouldn't have wanted to serve with a bunch of unmotivated time markers.

On the other, a general draft with exemptions only for bona fide pacifists and legitimate medical maladies certainly takes care of the huge free rider problem this country has.

Many people can pop off about their rights, political theory or whatnot, but I'd bet no war that wasn't within their own neighborhood would be enough to draw them into uniform--in other words, don't dare ask them to saddle up for their freedoms or threaten compulsion.

It is pretty sad that WW2 required 2/3rds draftees, especially after Pearl Harbor and the fact that Germany declared war on us that same day. Then again, the manpower needs were quite extreme.

In retrospect, the Vietnam draft was retarded. All in or all out is the only way to conduct a fair draft. A draft should only be resorted to in a true manpower crisis, and I don't think there ever was one during the Vietnam War, or we'd have had the South Koreans and the Europeans manning their own defensive lines.
 
WWII was mostly fought with a draft as more to stop ppl from enlisting en-masse than it was to force ppl to fight. They simply couldn't handle the huge influx and needed a way to throttle it.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
You've got a slight problem there -- the Armed Forces stopped accepting volunteers early in WWII. The reason was to produce a steady, dependable flow of men tailored to fit the Armed Forces needs and abilities to house, clothe, train and equip them.

So unless 2/3s of the men who served in WWII signed up in the first few months of the war, that's got to be wrong.

As for Viet Nam, most of the men in my company (A-1/61 IN) were draftees.
Click to expand...

vern, maybe i'm missing something here. that said 2/3rds in vietnam were volunteers, 2/3rd in ww2 were DRAFTED. it's supported by every site i've visited for info... e.g. here
 
Boats said:
I am ambivalent about a draft.

On the one hand, as a veteran, the all-volunteer model works, and is working right now even if it has some difficulties. I wouldn't have wanted to serve with a bunch of unmotivated time markers.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of welfare office politics here -- "The government has a duty to pay (or defend) me, but I have no obligation to work (or fight.)"

Boats said:
On the other, a general draft with exemptions only for bona fide pacifists and legitimate medical maladies certainly takes care of the huge free rider problem this country has.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But we can't afford a draft -- as I said, what would we do with an army of 12 to 15 million men and women? How could we afford it?

Boats said:
Many people can pop off about their rights, political theory or whatnot, but I'd bet no war that wasn't within their own neighborhood would be enough to draw them into uniform--in other words, don't dare ask them to saddle up for their freedoms or threaten compulsion.
Click to expand...

It's the old welfare office politics again -- "I get the free ride. YOU do the work (or the fighting.)

It is pretty sad that WW2 required 2/3rds draftees, especially after Pearl Harbor and the fact that Germany declared war on us that same day. Then again, the manpower needs were quite extreme.
Click to expand...

WWII used the draft to smooth out the flow of manpower -- they couldn't absorb all the men who volunteered in the early days, and needed a steady, dependable flow matched to the services' needs and ability to absorb them. That's why they cut off voluntary enlistments and retired on the draft completely.

In retrospect, the Vietnam draft was retarded. All in or all out is the only way to conduct a fair draft. A draft should only be resorted to in a true manpower crisis, and I don't think there ever was one during the Vietnam War, or we'd have had the South Koreans and the Europeans manning their own defensive lines.
Click to expand...

I propose we ask those who don't want to fight how much money it would take to get them to volunteer. And then we tax them enough to pay that amount to those who do volunteer. We exempt all combat soldiers from taxes for the rest of their lives.

That way we'd get plenty of soldiers, and no one would be drafted.:p
 
taliv said:
vern, maybe i'm missing something here. that said 2/3rds in vietnam were volunteers, 2/3rd in ww2 were DRAFTED. it's supported by every site i've visited for info... e.g. here
Click to expand...

I misread -- but even if 2/3s were drafted in WWII, that's a lot of enlistments in the opening months of the war.

Perhaps they are conflating "volunteered for the draft" with "enlisted."

My experience in combat units in Viet Nam (I have no experience in rear echelon units) was that the majority of the men I commanded were draftees.
 
i think the number of draftees vs number of voluteers in past conflicts is irrelevant. Our beliefs and society at that time determine the number who volunteer. Dissention during WW II was not socially acceptable. During Vietnam it was the popular thing to do.
A draft could include many useful forms of service besides military service.
 
I think the draft should only apply when Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Various policing actions should be paced by the manpower available and maintained via volunteer forces. Ongoing, essentially peacetime, American bluster in foreign policy will have to take into account the level of volunteer forces available. If they have to start a "war" in order to kick in the draft, then I'll leave it to Congress to validate the proposition.
 
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...

No draft.

But everyone is trained and everyone is in the militia. That's how it was, that's how it is in Switzerland, and I have no problem with it being that way here in the US.

There should remain, of course, limits on when and how the militia can be called. This has always been. Militias are tied to their states and even smaller localities. They cannot simply be sent overseas.
 
ArmedBear said:
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...

No draft.
Click to expand...

A militia is a draft. The militia concept is rooted in the idea that everyone must serve when called on.

But everyone is trained and everyone is in the militia. That's how it was, that's how it is in Switzerland, and I have no problem with it being that way here in the US.

There should remain, of course, limits on when and how the militia can be called. This has always been. Militias are tied to their states and even smaller localities. They cannot simply be sent overseas.
Click to expand...

That's the thinking that kept us from taking Candad in the War of 1812. Fortunately, people had changed their minds by the Mexican War -- or California would not have an illegal immigrant problem -- they'd all be Mexicans.:D
 
I think my kids will better serve our Republic by getting good educations, making six-figures or more annually, hiring folks and paying taxes, than if they were schlepping around in the desert somewhere shooting Arabs.

THE BIG PROBLEM with Vietnam is that we had an idiot President who sent almost 60,000 Americans to their deaths for a nonsensical exercise in futility.
 
fletcher said:
I believe that basic marksmanship and firearm-related skills should be taught in high school. "The more you know" kinda thing.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, every chinese engineer I've worked with, young and old, can easilly recount the training they've had with AKM based firearms...

MD
 
I think if Americans won't fight for their country of their own free will then we deserve what we get in the long run. Paying someone to shanghai people to do the fighting for me won't delay that day of reckoning very long since it doesn't address the underlying cultural reasons that people choose not to fight for their homes.
 
Another huge problem with the draft would be its utility in today's military landscape. In the late 18th century, when the draft really started being used, the military forces needed millions of warm bodies to march into the field. The quality and skill of the fodder didn't matter all that much. This continued through the wars of the 19th century and reached its peak in WWI, when many draftees were barely even trained but sent to the front to die. Today's battlefield is so politically and physically complex, only geunine experts have any hope of making sense of it. The business of fighting America's wars is no longer a job for draftees. A bunch of random 18 year olds pulled off the street are going to do a lot more harm than good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top