Reinstitute the Draft?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about this idea, that we do away with the professional standing Army, Marines, and Navy. We can replace them with a well trained professional National Guard and Coast Guard men/women for protecting the boaders and waterways. Forget sending our son and daughters off to die or worse be maimed for life, for a political party's misforgotten adventures in a far away land. I rather have a military like Swizterland, Sweden or Finland that is always on duty and training. I bet you would not even have to have a mandorty service, since if you made the military into a high tech job training, then many people would join to learn skills. With the savings of not having to send troops overseas, maintaing bases overseas, having a million man standing military or needing special high tech equipment for wars we would be able to afford national healthcare for all working stiffs and their familys.
 
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
Art Eatman said:
"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."

Yeah, no way a bunch of 18-year-olds are qualified to go into engineering or medicine, either.

Sorry, but that's about as hokey a bit of bunkum as has been posted at THR.

Art
Click to expand...

Good point, Art. OF COURSE 18-yr-olds RANDOMLY pulled from the street won't EVER get into medicine or engineering.
 
let it be known i am anti-this-current-war, but not anti-war in general, so i'm certainly no pacifist.

that being said, indiscriminately forcing anyone and everyone into a foreign land when they don't want to be there could prove disastrous. i'd imagine even if offered a non-fighting position, a lot of folks would "accidentally" have vehicle accidents, etc. not to mention the powers that be are putting rifles into the hands of those who now have a serious bone to pick with them. the occasional instances of a nutcase throwing grenades into his own camp could very well increase.

personally, if an outside threat were to suddenly be on the beach 30 minutes from here, i'd like to believe i'd be prepared to at least try to fight back. that's what i see as defense - not all the current provocation of non-belligerent enemies thousands of miles away and calling it defense. so i guess that makes me one of the proverbial rifles behind a blade of grass.
 
Art Eatman said:
Yeah, no way a bunch of 18-year-olds are qualified to go into engineering or medicine, either.

Sorry, but that's about as hokey a bit of bunkum as has been posted at THR.

Art
Click to expand...

Art, would YOU want a doctor operating on you who was forced to go to med school or face a long term in prison? Would YOU want an engineer desigining your buildings if his training came at bayonet-point by a bunch of DI's screaming equations at him?

The draft is a good way to guarantee that most of the folks you get will be the ones who were too poor or too distracted to plan a way to avoid the draft. That was fine when the military just needed fodder, but it's a recipe for disaster now. The amount of training and experience needed to really make a difference in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, to know friend from foe and to form alliances, is the equivalent to a master's degree. Average "grunts" these days are doing the sort of advanced work that used to be reserved for special forces. Like it or not, they're nation-building and they're doing it under fire. That's a far more complex a task than climbing over the top and charging into the Maxims.
 
Conscription is evil.


If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.


Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.


If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.
 
Don't Tread On Me said:
Conscription is evil.


If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.


Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.


If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.
Click to expand...


WOW no truer words have ever been written on this board. Thanks!!

Cant help but think that the draft is a result of not listening to these mere words of advice:

--"If Tyranny and Oppression Come to this Land, it Will be in the Guise of Fighting a Foreign Enemy"
-- "The Means of Defense Against Foreign Danger Historically have Become the Instruments of Tyranny at Home - Both by James Madison
 
I think that every young adult Person should do some sort of public service for at least a couple of years.
 
Despite what the revisionist and hollywood want us to believe in no way, shape, or form can defeat in Vietnam be attributed to draftees. The US had absolute military superiority. Other than that .01%, Draftees and volunteers carried themselves in an honorable manner, and went above and beyond the call of duty. The draft was not disastrous in Vietnam, it didn't destroy America, it didn't destroy the military, it wasn't a hindrance.

If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.
Click to expand...

Am I Un-American for thinking that using the draft during WWII was a good thing? The Red Army's use of conscripts to stop the Nazi war machine can hardly be called bad for society. The Prussians used conscripts to fight off Napoleon, was that bad for society?:rolleyes:

Modern draft, no thanks, you can't create a competent Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman, in less than two years. Today we'd put a lot into the system and not get much back out.
 
If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.
Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.
If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.
Click to expand...

This would be funny if not so sad. The idea of a draft frighten so many
because they fear discipline, do not fear guys the draft will only be reinstated
when it's too late if we follow present trend. Perhaps in time we can purchase troops from Mexico.:rolleyes:
 
All of the above examples were a violation of invididual rights. "Comfort women" the Japanese army used may have been good for Japan...but they were a violation of individual rights also.
 
Well, I'm glad to see that other people know how what I should do in my life better than myself.
 
pcf said:
Despite what the revisionist and hollywood want us to believe in no way, shape, or form can defeat in Vietnam be attributed to draftees. The US had absolute military superiority. Other than that .01%, Draftees and volunteers carried themselves in an honorable manner, and went above and beyond the call of duty. The draft was not disastrous in Vietnam, it didn't destroy America, it didn't destroy the military, it wasn't a hindrance.
Click to expand...

If by the draft, you mean the men who were drafted -- and who served honorably and courageously, you're right.

But when you factor in those who didn't want to serve, who saw political advantage in using this as an issue, and so on -- the result was we won a war at much greater cost than it should have been, and threw away the victory.
 
Public Service

I think it would be a good idea to have two years of public service for everyone in this country.

Civilian Conservation Corps, Litter pick up, library worker, mental health assistant, hospital helper, floor washer, military, filing papers at local police department, reading teachers...almost anything.

If people want to go to college right after high school, they can serve concurrently with their schooling by part time help with edjucating less fortunate kids. I know a lot of people need to make some money when they are in school, and doing the other jobs, so pay them...it's got to be a better way to get money into the economy than welfare.

I also think that illegal aliens who want to become citizens sahould be able to volunteer to serve two years of AMERICAN service (as stated above, not just military) BEFORE they become eligible to be citizns. Then give them a few years to qualify as citizens, including speaking English, or they lose their opportunity.

I really don't want to hear the "where would the money come from" arguement because it seems like we can always find billions to drop bombs, why not find it to edjucate this country, make it cleaner, safer, better infrastructure, more nurses, doctors, trained people in trades, teachers. They could all get their start by two years of service, sorta like an appretaship in the field of their choice, but they have to do something. I'll bet there will still be plenty of people like myself who choose to enlist in the military.

By the way....VERN HUMPHERIES....I went to Vietnam and don't consider myself an "unfortunate"!!!!

PS, I HAVE some edgeekayshun....I just type too fast sometimes
 
If we find ourselves in a conflict requiring a draft it will be because we abandoned our technological advantage by giving up our technology base. Pragmatically, war is no longer something for amatures to engage in. That said, someone needs to ask our political masters why it is we insist on more deployments while simultaneously maintaining manpower. Yeah, I know we are retooling but all I see so far is talk and no action. I see grunts on their third deployment in Iraq while no changes have taken place in Europe other than repositioning bases from old Europe to new Europe. The military is not an infinitely expanding resource despite or technology advantage. Somehow I think our political masters don't agree.
 
depicts said:
I think it would be a good idea to have two years of public service for everyone in this country.

Civilian Conservation Corps, Litter pick up, library worker, mental health assistant, hospital helper, floor washer, military, filing papers at local police department, reading teachers...almost anything.

If people want to go to college right after high school, they can serve concurrently with their schooling by part time help with edjucating less fortunate kids. I know a lot of people need to make some money when they are in school, and doing the other jobs, so pay them...it's got to be a better way to get money into the economy than welfare.

I also think that illegal aliens who want to become citizens sahould be able to volunteer to serve two years of AMERICAN service (as stated above, not just military) BEFORE they become eligible to be citizns. Then give them a few years to qualify as citizens, including speaking English, or they lose their opportunity.

I really don't want to hear the "where would the money come from" arguement because it seems like we can always find billions to drop bombs, why not find it to edjucate this country, make it cleaner, safer, better infrastructure, more nurses, doctors, trained people in trades, teachers. They could all get their start by two years of service, sorta like an appretaship in the field of their choice, but they have to do something. I'll bet there will still be plenty of people like myself who choose to enlist in the military.

By the way....VERN HUMPHERIES....I went to Vietnam and don't consider myself an "unfortunate"!!!!

PS, I HAVE some edgeekayshun....I just type too fast sometimes
Click to expand...

If you were in combat, you should understand it's a bit more of a sacrifice than picking up paper in the park. When there's shooting, there's no "equivallent service."

And while those who served did it with grace and dignity, those who didn't were behind a nasty political movement that encouraged the enemy and increased the burden on those who did.

As for education, I think we should start educating children long before they reach military age. When every child graduates from high school with a first-class education, then we can think about other uses for our money.

But until then, raising, equipping, clothing, feeding, housing and training a 12-million man Army is something we don't need.
 
I think something big is missing in these periodic arguments.

1. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right of citizens to keep & bear arms - with no restriction on what those arms are (not to be confused with doing dangerous things with them - another discussion).

2. The 2nd Amendment protects that right for the non-exclusive purpose of maintaining the security of the free state (largely interpreted as protecting everything from self to nation).

3. Implied by this right, and by the Militia Act of 1792 (among other writings), the Founding Fathers intended that right, practically speaking and allowing for personal conscience, embodies a DUTY to arm oneself in defense of self and nation; the Act REQUIRED every militia member (males 17-45 or so) arm himself with a minimum standard of weaponry suitable for standard modern combat.

4. Also implied, for the same reasons, is that the state should provide appropriate coordination and training for its armed citizens. The Militia Act of 1792 also required the state provide this periodically.

5. The training indicated in #4 is NOT years of compulsory military service to the total exclusion of normal life, but amounted to a monthly gathering of one's local community in the interest of WORKING TOGETHER - citizens & gov't - to form a functional, albeit loose, militia ready to act for local defense on a moment's notice.

6. The Militia Act of 1792 (remember, this was written by the same guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and not long after) called for registration of militia members: not in terms of conscripts, but of who could be relied upon for aid (big difference).

7. Conscription per se is anathama to the Constitution: it amounts to military slavery. This is very different from a free citizen fulfilling his moral duty to self/family/town/county/state/national defense by being "called up". There's a difference between registering for "we need your help" and "show up or else".

8. Compulsary military service - see #7. Losing years of your life to compulsary full-time duty is wrong.

9. When people talk of "the draft", they think of getting shipped overseas to fight battles of debatable security benefits. Strong cases can be made for protecting national security by military involvement elsewhere. The term "draft", however, generally does not refer to military action within our borders.

10. In "calling up the militia", the Founding Fathers referred to depending on citizens for defensive acts within national borders.

11. Via other long discussions, there is a distinct difference between the "military" and the "militia". The "military" is a formal body of volunteers who fight politically-directed battles outside our nation; this is brought into stark relief by "posse comatosus" (sp?) forbidding the military from operating within US borders. The "militia" is the armed citizenry which fights actual enemy assaults upon US soil as needed.

The upshot:
- The "draft" and "compulsary service" is unconstitutional. Forcing citizens, under threat of imprisonment or death, to fight outside our borders is just wrong. Military service must be voluntary; if a war is warranted, we will get the voluntary military we deserve.
- "Calling up the militia" is profoundly constitutional. Expecting citizens to arm themselves for defensive combat within our borders is a woefully under-recognized Constitutional philosophy; likewise the duty of the local governments to provide training & coordination whereby the armed citizenry can be called to defend their own region on short notice.

We don't need a draft. We don't need compulsary military service.
What we DO need is a government that encourages (if not requires) citizens to arm themselves, to train them, and to coordinate them for in-borders defense.

All this arguing about overseas & multi-year dedicated service, with no discussion of just making sure each able-bodied citizen has a rifle, ammo, basic supplies, and knows how to coordinate their use with neighbors. People wonder why I'm into guns & defense without having joined the military; answer: I want to live my life here, and be prepared to engage in local defense. I see a big difference between combat _outside_ our borders vs. _inside_ our borders. Military operations outside our borders is (or should be) good international policy; militia operations inside our borders is an imperative when appropriate.
 
pcf said:
Am I Un-American for thinking that using the draft during WWII was a good thing? The Red Army's use of conscripts to stop the Nazi war machine can hardly be called bad for society. The Prussians used conscripts to fight off Napoleon, was that bad for society?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Yes, it was a bad thing. Exactly what is so great about two nations forcing MILLIONS of people against their will into a massive slaughter, the results of which will be the preservation of tyrannical government A or tyrannical govenrment B.


A free and independent people WILLFULLY volunteer to defend their nation when they personally feel that their nation is in danger. This is fact. To disagree with this is to say that civilians are stupid, and governments are smart in assessing threats. This is exactly what the 20th century socialists want people to believe. They want the Father/Son relationship between government/citizen. You don't know any better - so they'll make the decision of whether or not your life is at stake in some global war and then take you by threat of gun into a war.


wingman said:
This would be funny if not so sad. The idea of a draft frighten so many
because they fear discipline, do not fear guys the draft will only be reinstated
when it's too late if we follow present trend. Perhaps in time we can purchase troops from Mexico.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


AH, the classic "You don't like the draft because you're a coward"...


"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Quote by:

Hermann Goering
(1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
Date:

April 18, 1946
Source:

Nuremberg Diary (Farrar, Straus & Co 1947), by Gustave Gilbert (an Allied appointed psychologist), who visited daily with Goering and his cronies in their cells, afterwards making notes and ultimately writing the book about these conversations.
 
Hawkmoon said:
Nobody I knew ever objected to the draft on a conceptual, "The draft is enforced slavery" basis. The objections were to what some viewed as an illegal "war," and to being drafted personally, not to the concept of the draft.
Click to expand...

Note "personally".

For every draft dodger or exemption hog I knew in college, it was all about me, me, me - avoiding any risk to themselves. Except for the tiny fraction of "illegal war" lunatics, they were all willing to let someone else get his ass shot off.
 
For every draft dodger or exemption hog I knew in college, it was all about me, me, me - avoiding any risk to themselves.
Click to expand...
Yep! Every one I knew though he was superior to the dolts too stupid to avoid the draft. One guy told me his future contribution to mankind was going to be too valuable for him to risk death or injury in Vietnam. Enlist? Too stupid to let 'em breed. The 60's opposition to the war gave rise to the cult of the elitist, the very burden under which we labor today. The only principaled opposition to the war I saw was the consciencious (?sp) objector who willingly served as a medic. Met a few of them and to this day I have the greatest respect for their stand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Democrat calls for reinstatement of draft
Replies
4
Views
563
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
Talking draft in light of Iraq occupation
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
2K
rayra
R
C
  • Locked
Dick Act of 1902
Replies
5
Views
1K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
E
  • Locked
Japan Changing Constitution for Military Buildup
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Billll
B
D
  • Locked
Prisoner Abuse.....details!
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top