FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Draft (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Draft
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
We lose something with an all volunteer army. Sure, we gain efficiency and a few other intangibles, but we lose something a little more dear. We have an all volunteer army, and it seems that we send them out anytime we want to. Contrast this against having an army made up of people doing their duty, and the government sending them out when we ought to.

Why is it the case that Congress would never think of instituting the draft? What has serving in the armed forces become so that drafting is inappropriate?

I do think that if we had a drafted army, we would be a little more serious in these deliberations. And look, if I were going to war instead of Bean Counter, Jar Head, and Blackfox, be sure that I'd have a lot more to say about the situation, and I would make sure I was be heard. You all are taking it like champs, I'd go to Iraq, but not before I right a few strong invectives against this administration.

What are the virtues of an all volunteer army? How has taking up arms for the country become a matter of choice? What sense does this make?

[ November 09, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
Someone who is compelled to do a job does so far less effectively than someone who volunteered to be there.

It's the difference between me telling my son to go empty the dishwasher and him asking me if there's anything he can do to help around the house (there's a thought worth fainting over [Smile] ). In the two situations, which is more likely to produce broken dishes?

I'd much rather have someone defending my freedom who chose to be there.

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Besides, if the general impression is that we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam, then the draft didn't play that role back then.

Is there something different about America now that would make things different? I don't know that there is.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
The advantages of having an all volunteer army is a guaranteed amount of profesionalism and ability. There are also concerns about motivation. Furthermore, the people who sign up are more likely to end up remaining in the military for a longer period of time than would be mandatory in most countries with mandatory service. The effectiveness is very important because more training can be given to someone who is in the service longer. It also reduces causualties.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
You can't compell someone to do something that they already understand that they are supposed to do. I don't know if we understand this anymore, maybe we do understand this with respect to marriage.

It's not a matter of compulsion if you expect your husband to be faithful. It's a matter of expecting your husband to understand what it is to be a husband in a marriage.

The same could be said about the draft.
________________________________________________

I agree, it's not very efficient, but when we as a nation are sending people to go kill other people, as a matter of course, I don't think that efficiency should be the highest virtue. We don't go into Iraq because it is efficient. We don't go into Afghanistan because it is efficient. Efficiency shouldn't have stopped us from looking in to the Sudan.

There are other concerns. Heck, if we had downgraded efficiency, it's possible that we wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, and maybe we would have done some better work in Afghanistan and the Sudan.

There is something wrong with the way we choose to go to war, and I think it has to do with understanding what we commit when we choose to go to war. There is something wrong with the way we talk about this, but I can't put my finger on it.

[ November 09, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"Fall of the RomanEmpire" syndrome: some folk (like Dubya, Limbaugh, etc) think that they're too good to serve in the military.
Might consider that the next time they claim to view the military as something other than expendible "bread&circus" entertainment.

[ November 09, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
We don't act based on efficiency, but when we do act we want as few Americans to die as possible. Would you rather have the people targeting downtown Baghdad during the initial days of the conflict to be experts who will hit the building they aim at or people who've been in the service for a few months and might hit a school as easily as Saddam's palace?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
War had been committed with a drafted Army more often than with an all volenteer Army, so you point is non-existant.

Also, anyone who has been in the service will tell you that all your words about "being heard" and about speaking against war if YOU ewere in the service is crap. If you did that they would court-marshall you faster than you can move your mouth.

By insinuating that YOU would do a better job than those who have volenteered you are being arrogant wherther you realize it or not. You ingnorance of the situation you would be in speaks volumes.

Also, there is one other thing...no Army is ever all drafted....they accept volenteers as well, so Black Fox, BC, and I would all still be serving.

I would rather have people who signed up for this doing the job than Joe Shmoe from Pocono being handed a rifle for the first time in his life, and then shipping him off as soon as he can shoot it. Not only are the casualties much smaller this way but the efficiancy is much higher regarding the tasks that need to be done.

Also, an all volenteer Army is much more in keeping with the principles of this country......respecting individual freedoms.

And anyone who says that they would give the brass a peice of their mind first has obviously never served a day in their life.

Kwea

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the non-volunteer army will fundamentally change for the better, the run-up to the war. Once the bullets start flying, I agree, efficiency rules.

quote:

Also, anyone who has been in the service will tell you that all your words about "being heard" and about speaking against war if YOU ewere in the service is crap. If you did that they would court-marshall you faster than you can move your mouth.

I wouldn't do a better job of fighting, I'd do a better job of mouthing off before I went. For very good reasons, I'd make a mediocre to horrible soldier. But there is a difference between sending people who volunteer to go, and sending people who are only going out of duty to the country. And the people who are in the latter group are going to be quicker to hold the government accountable. Their loyalty isn't to the government, as it is, it's to the government as it ought to be. These second group of folks go to war out of an ideal, and if the government doesn't live up to their share of the ideal, they are coming back mad as hell. I imagine some reservists who feel like their have been drafted, feel the same way. There is a virtue in a draft, for no other reason than it takes everyone's wants out of the picture, and puts the focus squarely on the reasons why we went go war.

quote:
And anyone who says that they would give the brass a peice of their mind first has obviously never served a day in their life.
That's the thing. That's the danger in self-selecting pool.

[ November 09, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Inefficiency could make us lose. We don't want to lose.

But more importantly, an all-volunteer army has the advantage of not violating our rights. We are a nation that believes in freedom. To use force to enslave innocent people in way that will risk their lives, even for a short sentence, is not consistent with the notion of liberty.

I don't believe some idea that a draft will discourage war is sufficient reason to justify taking away the right to liberty and forcing innocents to go die for America against their will.

[ November 09, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mackillian
Member
Member # 586

 - posted      Profile for mackillian   Email mackillian         Edit/Delete Post 
Except that whole stop-loss policy going on at the moment.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not saying that this will make a better army. I think it'll make it less efficient. I have no doubt about this, but I think we need to put individual rights in perspective.

This notion of choice with respect to who we invade/capture/kill, and who does the killing/capturing/killing is fascinating. How is any of this a matter of preference? And should it be?

[ November 09, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Hey aspectre, can you stop beating that drum? Try these cynbals instead [Smile]

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig avoiding landmarks
Member
Member # 6792

 - posted      Profile for Danzig avoiding landmarks           Edit/Delete Post 
I view a draft as morally equivalent to slavery, and slavery is generally a bad thing. If I thought my life was in danger, I would enslave people if I had any reason to believe it would help.

If I were drafted, my loyalty would be only to myself and any friends or family. As long as my own interests were in line with what they told me to do, I would obey. That would probably be the case in most situations. If a situation arose where my interests were contrary to my orders, I would choose them. If I had volunteered, I would be interested in keeping my word, and that would supercede the others, so I would follow orders.

If I had been forced to marry at gunpoint, I would not feel obligated to keep any marriage vows I made.

Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
Irami, isn't what you're suggesting really mandatory military service rather than a draft? You, if I'm understanding you correctly, are suggesting that with American mandatory military service, the President would be under that much more pressure to keep us out of combat situations. This is with the assumption that with that many angry mothers, he'd have to be nuts to get us into a war.

Is that correct?

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
The DoD has gone beyond stop-loss to a new drag-back policy: Gulf War Vet Sues Army Over New Call-Up
quote:
Hawaiian Man Sues Army for Ordering Him to Duty, 13 Years After Being Discharged From Active Duty HONOLULU Nov 7, 2004 ,AP— A veteran of the first Persian Gulf War is suing the Army after it ordered him to report for duty 13 years after he was honorably discharged from active duty and eight years after he left the reserves.

Kauai resident David Miyasato received word of his reactivation in September, but says he believes he completed his eight-year obligation to the Army long ago.

"I was shocked," Miyasato said Friday. "I never expected to see something like that after being out of the service for 13 years

edit:BTW, to join the debate, I think the volunteer army is a great idea. The draft in this country has had it's day, hopefully. The volunteer forces, with out unsurmountable technological advantages, suffice to defend America. But they are streched thin when used more aggresively.

Until recently, the armed services haven't had trouble enlisting sufficient troops to defend America. But I think stop-loss and other policies will back-fire in the long term. Some folks may hesitate to sign up if it's not a finite term enlistment but rather open-ended on the government's terms.

[ November 09, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the problem is how we frame it: it's the difference between obligate and oblige.

An obligation is a voluntary commitment. It's a matter of choice or preference whose bonds you enter into. Marriage or a car pool or something like that.

When you are obliged, it's a relation of who are you, as you are. If someone leaves a baby on your porch on a rainy night, rings the doorbell, and runs away. It's not a matter of choice, whether you take the baby in and call the cops/social welfare. The problem is that some of the obliges are controversial. And since good people can have an honest debate about which one of these obliges are true and are false, we tend to throw the entire catagory out. The funny thing is, we do it in the name of efficiency.

Once we throw about the sense of "oblige," we are left with obligations. And then it just becomes a matter of someone's taste. Whether to serve in the military becomes morally equivalent to deciding which ice cream flavor to pick.
________________________________________________

Jeni, I don't know.

quote:
the President would be under that much more pressure to keep us out of combat situations.
I don't want the President to be under pressure to keep us out of combat situations. Thinking about the draft as a form of pressure already assumes an obligation that you have a choice about.

I'd rather that the President kept us out of the wrong combat situations. Right now, I'm not so sure he has to think about it. From what I gather, right or wrong, this Army is going to support the President. The thing is, I think that this President sees it as a matter of obligation, that is, choice and convenience. Invading Iraq is ultimately efficient, even if their weren't any WMDs.

I imagine mandatory military service would be appropriate, but do we really need that many people?

[ November 09, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
I confess to not understanding at all what you are suggesting then, Irami. I'm sorry.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AmkaProblemka
Member
Member # 6495

 - posted      Profile for AmkaProblemka   Email AmkaProblemka         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess this could be changed, but one problem I see is that the tour of duty for non-volunteer army is only two years, while volunteer tours of duty is 4 years. I understand it takes approximately 1.5 years in our modern army to train our soldiers sufficiently to the technology. It isn't economically sound. That is why the Pentagon wouldn't want it right now.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not being clear.
In the current army:

The army is all volunteer.
These volunteers are committed to the President.
The President chooses military targets based on preference and efficiency.

There are two alternatives:

1) The army is a draft army.
Half the people want to be there, half are forced to be there. Half are committed to the President no matter what, half resent the government for making them serve.
The President chooses military targets based on preference and efficiency.

2) The army is one of mandatory service. (You were right)
The soldiers understand that it doesn't matter what they want, part of what it is to be an American is serving in this army.
They are not loyal to the President, just because he is the President. They understand what it is to be 18 years old and in America. They will fight when America calls, but they do not need any gag orders and we do not expect them to be happy about it. They aren't forced there under penalty of law, but through an understanding of what it is to be an American. They also don't volunteer for it, because they don't particularly like it or think that it's going to do them any good.

The President chooses military targets with the same sense of understanding, not with respect to efficiency or perspective or economy.
_________________________________________________

In this third scenario, choice is taken out of the equation. Choice on the citizen's part and choice on the President's part. Instead of choice, there is understanding. This understanding is not a function of efficiency, preference, or profit. It is strictly moral.

This requires in incredible amount of debate, and of course, and a general ethos change, from a culture where the individuals believe they can do what they want when they want to, to a culture where the individuals feel that when something matters, it's not an issue of what they want.

As a result, I think we would have more thoughtful military campaigns with clear objectives and fewer surprises.

[ November 09, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We lose something with an all volunteer army. Sure, we gain efficiency and a few other intangibles, but we lose something a little more dear. We have an all volunteer army, and it seems that we send them out anytime we want to. Contrast this against having an army made up of people doing their duty, and the government sending them out when we ought to.
Perhaps you have not noticed that the duration of wars since the removal of the Draft has decreased significantly. Along with this, when you have a war that involves an all-volunteer army, it's fairly safe to say that a good percentage (especially the number that joined after the war started) of the military will support that war, and as a result, fight harder to bring it to a successful conclusion. This isn't so with a Draft Army. Even during WWII there was a HUGE percentage of draftees that opposed the war. Draftees in every war have been considered little more than cannon fodder, at least to the really hi-ups. It hasn't been until recently that we've started worrying about the individual soldier. This, I think, is due in great part to the fact that officers in the military have greater respect for the person who just states it out loud, "Send me, I'll do it," than for the person who was "dragged" into the military. Of course I have nothing but my own (likely flawed) logic to back me up...
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This, I think, is due in great part to the fact that officers in the military have greater respect for the person who just states it out loud, "Send me, I'll do it," than for the person who was "dragged" into the military.
Boris, a person who says, "Send me, I'll do it," may not be discriminating enough. The same person who will do anything for his CO should not be the same person who decides what the country should do. I fear this is what happens with an all volunteer army.
____________

I think we are in this problem in Iraq because the President didn't take the problem of invading Iraq seriously enough. The President didn't take Iraq seriously enough because the American people didn't take it seriously enough. The American people didn't take it seriously enough because, well, we don't care. And for the the most part, the President likes it that we don't care. Even if we only killed/captured one terrorist, it's worth it. We don't lose anything, we get defense contract jobs, heck, we can just pay for it on the credit card.

This war has been so incredibly convenient, and you know what, it has to be, because if it ever became inconvenient, the people who wouldn't volunteer to go fight would be up in arms. Bush didn't ask us to do anything to support the war, accept vote for him, and all that is real suspicious.

I think Jeni understood my point better than I did: mandatory service would force the public to make a considered judgement about the war, including the politicians. Instead, we have a large group of people who say, "Sure, it's not like I have to do anything," and the only people who are doing something, wanted to do it in the first place.

[ November 09, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I wouldn't do a better job of fighting, I'd do a better job of mouthing off before I went. For very good reasons, I'd make a mediocre to horrible soldier. But there is a difference between sending people who volunteer to go, and sending people who are only going out of duty to the country. And the people who are in the latter group are going to be quicker to hold the government accountable. Their loyalty isn't to the government, as it is, it's to the government as it ought to be. These second group of folks go to war out of an ideal, and if the government doesn't live up to their share of the ideal, they are coming back mad as hell. I imagine some reservists who feel like their have been drafted, feel the same way. There is a virtue in a draft, for no other reason than it takes everyone's wants out of the picture, and puts the focus squarely on the reasons why we went go war.
Once again you prove that you don't understand how the military works.

They wouldn't let you mouth off, and that is their right under the UCMJ. It would be insabordination, and if you did it more than once you would not have any options left.

The problem with allowing your idea to go forth is that you have NO idea what such service requires, and no idea why it needs those requirements.

I wasn't a very good soldier, but I was a very good EMT/Medic. Even with that, and serving in peacetime, I had problems with the brass.

You still havn't proven that it would be any more effective in preventing the actions you dislike, other than saying that you think it would. Most people throughout the history of warfare were not volenteers...most were conscripts, and they didn't fight well. Also, the draft didn't prevent Vietnam
from happening, ir costing more American lives.

It diesn't sound like you have thought this through.

How about we draft your son to fight in a less effective Army...but don't cry to us when he dies due to some "ineffeciency" that you think would be acceptable right now.

Kwea

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, they really sucked in WWII. [Roll Eyes]

I like the idea of National Service. While I think the Congressman's kid would get out of a draft (Bush, Clinton,) if everyone had to serve, I think they would be a lot more careful with choosing which war to get involved in. I wonder how helpful having a teen-aged son would help future president hopefuls chances of being elected.

(The whole "rich kids evading the draft" thing is what bothers me about Charles Rangel's discussion about the draft. People don't believe that having a draft would significantly change the socio-economic or racial make-up of the Army.)

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
No they didn't but they were in a far different climate...ask anyone who knows.

There is a huge difference between even a grunts life now and one then. Also, by any comparason this volenteer Army is FAR more efficient than any in history....even WW II.

And that war didn't cause any public outcry against it once we were into the war, did it? And that wasn't mandatory service. Many people volenteered, and weren't maligined for it...quite the contrary.

My Uncle died there, on Omaha beach, because of the Army's ineffeciency in landing the troops....something our all volenteer Army does quite well now.

I should know, my Aunt was the Marine expert on rapid mobilization for Desert Storm.

Back to my main point...it wouldn't work as a deterant to war.

Thank you for making my point so easy to prove.

Kwea

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm just floating the idea.

There is something fishy about the government not asking us to give up anything during a time of war. All we have to do is vote Republican. We even get a tax break. What am I not getting?

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=8&u=/oneworld/20041109/wl_oneworld/6573975361100012947
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
wow

Edit:

It's easy to blame the security problem on the insurgents, though. Well, at least it's easier to blame them than blame our trade policies.

[ November 09, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Good link, Kayla.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yeah, they really sucked in WWII.
Casualty Count from WWII

Compared to now, yeah, pretty much (If anyone want's to break it down, we had 60000+ deaths per year in WWII, 6000+ per year in Korea, and 5000+ per year in Vietnam, from declaration to withdrawal. Compare that with 298 deaths from Desert Shield/Storm and the 1139 deaths in a year and a half since the Iraq invasion started, and I'd say our military is a little safer without the Draft.)

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is something fishy about the government not asking us to give up anything during a time of war. All we have to do is vote Republican. We even get a tax break. What am I not getting?
What, you WANT to get drafted now? (If that's not what you meant to say, sorry, that's what it looks to me like you're saying)
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Once we throw about the sense of "oblige," we are left with obligations. And then it just becomes a matter of someone's taste. Whether to serve in the military becomes morally equivalent to deciding which ice cream flavor to pick.
This is called freedom, but it is not the equivalent to a matter of taste. It is placing the question of right and wrong into the hands of the individual, rather than the hands of the government.

As much as the government might like to force military service on everyone, it still amounts to life-risking slavery if done so against the will against those serving. It would be wrong and dangerous to say anyone is "obliged" to anything of the sort.

quote:
I think we are in this problem in Iraq because the President didn't take the problem of invading Iraq seriously enough. The President didn't take Iraq seriously enough because the American people didn't take it seriously enough. The American people didn't take it seriously enough because, well, we don't care.
Except this is dead wrong - people DID care. 9/11 and terrorism and all that... they cared a lot.

The problem with Iraq was not a failure to care - it was a failure to understand. America failed to understand what the war on terror was all about and how we could go about winning it. We thought eliminating Saddam would help significantly, and we were wrong.

[ November 09, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What, you WANT to get drafted now? (If that's not what you meant to say, sorry, that's what it looks to me like you're saying)
Maybe. I feel like I'm part of some big syndicate, like I've invested in a pyramid scam, or maybe minor accountant who works for Enron. Something is going on.

[ November 09, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
For one I will say that Irami is very very correct and the rest of you are dead wrong, I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but it is simply the truth and I will state quite a few reasons why this is so.

Recently I read a book by a Colonel ( I believe he just made his first star) in the army called "Death Ground, Today's American Infantry in Battle. It takes first hand accounts from all modern day infantry engagements ( some I hadn't even heard of ) and ties it in with the authors proffesional experience as an infantry officer and certain modern trends in the army. For one I honestly want everyone in hatrack to read this so that they will understand something about their nations military.

As of 1998 the United States Military had a total of 91 Infantry battalions in the military as a whole ( this includes Marine infantry). Just to give you a comparison here the Military in 1968 had 200 Infantry battalions. Basically besides Armor battalions ( which there aren't nearly as many as infantry batts) the infantry is the part of our military that actually prosecutes war on foreign and domestic soil. That comes out that about 100,000 out of all those soldiers in the Army and Marine corp are actually trained and able trigger pullers. During the Vietnam war 15% of the soldiers in theater were actual infantry, about 80,000 for you number crunchers out there. Now the reasons that things are this way is that even during WWII Americans fought in a way that tried to minimize time fought between ground troops. Americans are all about the call for fire ( indirect fire supper, CAS, etc.)

For this reason during WWII America fielded at the most 95 divisions ( 67 infantry, 16 armored, 6 Marine, 5 Airborne, and one mountain). At 1944 in comparison the USSR had 500 Rifle divisions, in the same year Germany fielded 284 divisions. The way we have always fought is that we used a small front line force and backed it up with amazing firepower ( artillery etc.) Even in the Korean war we used this same sort of fighting, Vietnam as well. Fact is that this style has always worked to keep American casualties low. The thing is for this reason the American draft, and even now in the volunteer system to a point, the stupidest soldier always gets sent to be a grunt. Why you say? Well the fact was that the infantry wasn't the one killing the enemy back then, the infantry simply fixed the enemy for field artillery to finish them off. The only units who had the elite men to handle assaults and fierce ground combat were the Airbone and Marine divisions ( ranger battalions as well) of WWI as they were all volunteer. Basically they received the persons who wanted to fight, they wanted to kill. For this very reason guess which units in WWII you didn't want to be captured by if you were German/Japanese [Wink]

Basically todays infantry battalions are man by man the best infantry units that have been fielded in the history of the world. Even compared to those fierce WWII soldiers the men in the infantry of our day and time our elite compared ot them in their standards of training and their fierocity. But here is the thing that sort of a proffesional division is bad to have in a nation. not to mention it leads to an incomplete destruction of the enemy. We still believe in bringing the firepower, not the manpower. This was exhibited to an extreme during OIF as the Army and Marine units rolling in had no problems destroying the Iraqi units, but an amazing problem prosecuting war and also holding ground in a civil fashion. It led to unproffesional soldiers being put in numerous positions without guidance because they were reserves and grave misjudgements were made. The proffesional volunteer American soldier is a great amazing warrior, but he is honestly not the answer once the enemy has been crushed.

The fact is that a part of our military should always be volunteer, the airborne units, Marines, the elite units of the military. The problem is when all you have is a handfull of amazing killers this leads to the thought that hey I can beat him 100,000 soldiers, but hey unless I pull my entire military at once I can't really properly garrison the conquered nation. The fact is we need some sort of a reserve at the very least which is partly constructed of draftees. The reason being is Americans are much more careful thinkers when they know that hey a lot of our people will die if we do this. We'll win, but we will pay as well. That and I do believe higher education should not be a reason to exempt yourself from the draft, there should be nothing but pure physical inability and certain societal situations ( only son stuff etc.) that should keep a man from being put in the military. That and I've noticed that in general soldiers I serve with care a great deal about what is happening in the world. Everyone I know here watches the news, reads newspapers etc. That and how can an army be a "citizen" military when everyone who doesn't want to serve doesn't have to. How is the military any showing of what America is? Year after year the gap between ordinary America and the military grows more but people do not care to notice. I care not to see what happens in fifty to a hundred years if the current situation is not remedied. I care not to be an American in a nation which does not wish to uphold its long upstanding tradition goodness and kindness on the battle field. During WWII there were towns, cities, etc. that wanted to surrender to the Americans instead of the Brits etc. because of the kinder treatment they would receive. The German POWS in America that were held in the area of Fort Campbell actually had their own little store, movie theater etc. Now look at how we treat prisoners????? How is that America, how is that being conservative??? How is that espousing the ideas of my forefathers. People talk about how we need to go back to the values of those that became before us, perhaps its time that our own soldiers began that trend.

[ November 09, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
In all fairness WWII isn't a valid example and if the US was in a similar situation today we would need to institute the draft again. Vietnam and Korea are better examples regarding effectiveness.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
we had the draft instituted during both those conflicts. That and I disagree I think that WWII is an excellent example of force structure discipline etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
That and if you look at those conflicts we only actually won WWII, Korea was fought to a cease-fire and Vietnam was an obvious loss.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How is the military any showing of what America is?
It's capitalism, pure and simple. Is there a better way to describe America?

I think making military service mandatory would take something away from the institution. There's no way that every person in the country would subject themselves to the conformity and structure of the current military. The result would be a loosening of standards, I think, and decreased effectiveness.

In other words, wasted manpower. What on Earth would we need that many green soldiers for, anyway? Money that would be wasted on policing the world with our moral superiority, even moreso than now if we had a bunch of extra bodies eating up paychecks, could be better spent solving problems on a national level and researching how to solve them globally.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
Again I disagree, the golden standards that soldiers how set themselves to are draftees!!! Who does a soldier in my division respect, WWII vets, Korean war vets, Vietnam vets. We don't really think much of people who were in the first gulf war. That and the fact is what all do you think that a private does!!! I tell him what do to and he exectures. My only job is teaching poorly educated persons on how to survive and excel in combat and life. What you have to really worry about is the quality of comissioned and non-commissioned officers.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
That and because of our problems in getting new recruits, my unit is way under strength at the moment, we have to keep complete dirtbags and worthless soldiers because we do need another body. IF we got draftees we can always chapter out the complete dirtbags or just put them on extra duty. Believe me we have ways of making people complient that don't violate anyones civil rights. Right now we have to keep the incompetetents to keep numbers up.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Fox, you're forgetting human rights and freedom. No matter how much the military may or may not want a bunch of draftees, the point remains that it is a direct violation of our most fundamental rights. In this nation, you are supposed to not lose your right to freedom unless you commit a crime. Sending innocent civilians across the globe to risk their lives against their will is the most extreme violation of that principle imaginable, short of just going out and shooting random people on the street.

Would we go out and shoot random innocents on the street if we thought it could further our war effort? I hope not, at least not except for the far most extreme circumstances. I don't see the draft as being any more justified than that.

...

Now, if we want to talk about discouraging unneccessary wars, I have a better plan: Let's dissolve the peacetime military.

In all truthfulness, if we can't show enough restraint to avoid starting wars that we don't need, we should not allow ourselves to have the chance. It would mean the international community would have to take a much larger share of the world policing, but it would probably have avoided this whole terrorism war altogether (since it has been our military actions in the Middle East that initiated the anger), and saved us trillions of dollars to boot.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No matter how much the military may or may not want a bunch of draftees, the point remains that it is a direct violation of our most fundamental rights. In this nation, you are supposed to not lose your right to freedom unless you commit a crime. Sending innocent civilians across the globe to risk their lives against their will is the most extreme violation of that principle imaginable, short of just going out and shooting random people on the street.
I think this misunderstands freedom, or else the entire idea of taxes or jury duty would be an affront to freedom. Freedom isn't a factor of getting to do what you want when you want it. In Australia, they have mandatory voting. If you don't vote, you get fined. If you keep on not voting, they take away your drivers license.

[ November 10, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mackillian
Member
Member # 586

 - posted      Profile for mackillian   Email mackillian         Edit/Delete Post 
That, and we'd be completely vulnerable.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
We already ARE completely vulnerable... remember 9/11? Or, for that matter, remember all those nukes that could wipe us out at any moment that Russia or China chooses?

In the meanwhile, there are plenty of countries all over the world with little-to-no military force. Are they out getting conquered as we speak? Nope. In fact, for the most part, they've probably been attacked FEWER times than we have in recent history, even with all we spend on our military.

[ November 10, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
So I guess places like Finland, Norway, and Israel all don't have freedom. The Social Contract basically says that in return for protection and other services, the government has the right to limit your freedoms and rights. That's why taxation is justified.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
That is my problem. I've been in instances were a taxi cab and a young child were basically butchered because someone "thought" they saw someone with a weapon and off of his actions the rest of the squad opened up. Not to mention the same man that made this observation then fired into a crowded resteraunt way out of the target area.

Its because I've turned in prisoners to the brigade cage who we couldn't ident because there faces were that smashed. Because of all the instances of a lack of morality and ethicas in the military. It is a few that are doing it, but the fact that it all goes unpunished.

That and Basic and AIT for an infantry soldier is a total of 14 weeks and they get shipped off to their units. That and the reason it can take so long to train a soldier is because of all the garrison/paperwork that we have to do when we aren't in the field.

That and you all honestly don't have any clue how many little ways we have of getting a soldier to fall in line. How many of the soldiers I have in my fireteam like the army or want to reenlist when there term expires. 0% They hate the military, they hate the constant supervision etc. They have liked me as their team leader due to my certain leadership styles, but still I have to get on their cases all the time because they don't want to be there. The fact is most soldiers who finally get to their unit really don't want to be there anymore they are simply locked into their contracts and its a lot more painful to get out early rather than serve your time and get out with an honorable discharge and all your benefits. If I get a soldier who starts being a discipline problem first I'll just smoke him, verbally counsel him. Then I put it on paper and make him serve the kind of corrective training I can implement. If that fails whenever I get a third strike on someone ( which has only happened once) I just get the commander to do admin action. Thats stuff like loss of drinking privledges, loss of civilian dress privledge, loss of off-post and pass privledges. Loss of Driving privledges on post. Things of that nature in which I don't have to adminster even an ounce of UCMJ. Then under an Article 15 you can restrict them to the battalion/brigade area and take some of their money away and have them on extra duty. Which is the equivalent of them only being able to work , eat, and sleep. Then if they keep on messing up at the higher levels you can get them to do hard labour ( which is allowed to be cruel and demeaning unlike extra duty)

The fact is the only way the draft decreases the effectiveness of the military isn't their willingness to fight ( thats what we as NCOs implement in them) its the type of persons who are allowed in. If Draft standards are high enough you'll be fine.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We don't really think much of people who were in the first gulf war.
I hope teenagers in future wars give you the same respect. [Smile]

quote:
the entire idea of taxes or jury duty would be an affront to freedom.
Amen!

A tax on a product that goes directly towards making that product available to you wouldn't be, a la road tolls. But income tax? I think so.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That and you all honestly don't have any clue how many little ways we have of getting a soldier to fall in line.
"101 Ways to Break the Human Spirit", tonight at 11.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So I guess places like Finland, Norway, and Israel all don't have freedom. The Social Contract basically says that in return for protection and other services, the government has the right to limit your freedoms and rights. That's why taxation is justified.
Finland, Norway, and Israel violate their citizens' rights severely when they do what they do - but those are not nations built on freedom in the way America is.

The government only has a LIMITED right to limit our freedoms and rights. When it gets down to violating the fundamental rights like life and liberty, the government has less and less right to limit our freedoms. After all, if the government wants to go out and shoot random people on the street, they can't just say "Well, that's part of the social contract."

quote:
Freedom isn't a factor of getting to do what you want when you want it.
Yes, but Draft is not a mere matter of people not getting what they want. A Draft is much closer to sending people into slavery, or sentencing them to death. Taxes and jury duty are minor inconveniences - they don't have the potential to destroy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[ November 10, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
Xaospert the reason most of those nations don't have a large standing military is the fact that for the most part the larger military forces in the international community would crush them if they didn't. That and for the most part the only parts of the world that have smaller/weaker military forces also tend to have a great deal of political turmoil in the recent past ( South America, Central America, Africa). Besides that most of the world is pretty stocked up, even our peaceful little Switzerland has a good stock of weaponry.

That and the reason we deal with a lot of this stuff is basically because we have easily the largest economy in the world, we're where the moneys at. For that reason we have a great deal of political and social impact on the world becauser we have so much capital. Even if we didn't spend more of a percentage on the military than everyone else we would still have a bigger military just for the fact that we do draw so much money. That and btw how would you like the world right now if Saddam Hussein had taken Saudi and Kuwait. Then maybe have even gotten lucky and finally taken Iran. I bet our economy and you personally would be doing great with some rather expensive Gasoline etc.

That and no offense Sept 11th is nothing compared to what could occur if we were not vigilant. That and you speak of freedom and rights, well the fact is that the people pay the greatest price of liberty. You deal with the fact that your neighbor is free, he could if he wanted to probably walk over and kill your whole family, probably going to happen, but it could easily happen if he desired so. For your freedom and rights innocent blood might be shed, but we should not savagely waste the lives of other peoples in the world for our sole economical or political benefit.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2