The False Promises of a Draft

Tony · 24th June 2004, 08:49 PM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102858/

Quote:

It's a complex business, calculating how many troops a nation needs. No matter how you do the math, though, one thing is clear: The United States doesn't have enough.

Should we, must we, bring back the draft to fill the gaps?

We need to do something. Simply to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan (and we're doing a less-than-adequate job of that), the U.S. Army has mobilized all its available brigades, delayed their rotations back home, and turned the Guard and Reserves' "weekend warriors" into full-time soldiers. Despite all this, the Army still needs to bring in 4,000 troops from the once-untouchable garrison in South Korea. More desperately, it's ordering to Iraq members of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the outfit in Ft. Irwin, Calif., that trains all other Army units for desert warfare. This is like melting down the lathe to make more metal.

I don't see a draft being well received by the American public. What would happen if the draft were re-instituted?

Quote:

Nonetheless, we do need more troops. How do we get them, if not from a draft? The inescapable answer is that we have to pay more for them, maybe a lot more. Those of us who do not volunteer enjoy more freedom, leisure, and in many cases income, as a result. It is not asking too much to sacrifice some of that extra income for those who risk the ultimate sacrifice.

American · 24th June 2004, 09:12 PM

DoD commanders don't want it, the volunteer service members don't want it, the citizenry doesn't want it, average politicians don't want it. Recruitment levels are stable for all branches except the army, and retention levels are higher than ever in every branch including the army. It would only serve to weaken the military, hurt morale, divide the population due to the various exemptions (medical, educational, religious objectors) and the utter sense of unfairness that anyone should be called to serve in any capacity whatsoever.

The only way a draft will happen is if an American city gets nuked, and we suddenly decide to fight back in an all-out worldwide war. That could very well happen, but otherwise the current chance of a draft is zero.

corplinx · 24th June 2004, 09:26 PM

The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service.

They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics.

jj · 24th June 2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by American
The only way a draft will happen is if an American city gets nuked, and we suddenly decide to fight back in an all-out worldwide war. That could very well happen, but otherwise the current chance of a draft is zero.

So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim?

He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die.

jj · 24th June 2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service.

Peaceniks ask for draft?
What kind of stuff did Corplinx
Imbibe here tonight?

They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics.

Corplinx continues,
The war of lies never ends,
They just get bigger.

Tricky · 24th June 2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service.

Corplinx, are you outta your tree? I have never heard any peacenik begging for forced military service. The idea is abhorrant to them. (I myself am not a peacenik, but I do object to the Iraq war.) Some of them claim it is going to happen, but I don't know any who welcome it. Why don't you do a poll of the liberals here to see?

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics.

Oh really? While a few liberals have claimed we didn't send enough troops to do the job in Iraq (though I hear conservatives making that claim more often), I don't know of a single leftie who suggested we should start yanking troops off the streets to fill the ranks in Iraq. Really, Cor, you usually are not this out of it. I know that strawmen are not your specialty, so I can understand that this one is so poorly constructed.

corplinx · 24th June 2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Corplinx, are you outta your tree? I have never heard any peacenik begging for forced military service. The idea is abhorrant to them. (I myself am not a peacenik, but I do object to the Iraq war.) Some of them claim it is going to happen, but I don't know any who welcome it. Why don't you do a poll of the liberals here to see?

Oh really? While a few liberals have claimed we didn't send enough troops to do the job in Iraq (though I hear conservatives making that claim more often), I don't know of a single leftie who suggested we should start yanking troops off the streets to fill the ranks in Iraq. Really, Cor, you usually are not this out of it. I know that strawmen are not your specialty, so I can understand that this one is so poorly constructed.

I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic.

Tricky · 24th June 2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic.

Maybe I have. Could you provide a link to cure me of my ignorance?

Nasarius · 24th June 2004, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx

I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic.

They were not "begging for forced military service". They were trying to prove a point. Sorry you missed it.

corplinx · 24th June 2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nasarius

They were not "begging for forced military service". They were trying to prove a point. Sorry you missed it.

Yes, to be fair to Charlie Rangel he didn't really mean it. He was just trying to prove a point. The point being that if a Senator mentions bringing back the draft it will get some talking heads to mention and create "buzz".

Blue Monk · 24th June 2004, 11:25 PM

For reference

Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft

LostAngeles · 24th June 2004, 11:48 PM

What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay."

Homosexuality, it's better than Canada.

Blue Monk · 25th June 2004, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay."

Homosexuality, it's better than Canada.

Plus you don't have to suffer the stigmatisim of being openly Canadian.

coalesce · 25th June 2004, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Plus you don't have to suffer the stigmatism of being openly Canadian.

And you'll probably get your own show on the Bravo channel.

Michael

Tricky · 25th June 2004, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay."

Quote:

Originally posted by coalesce
And you'll probably get your own show on the Bravo channel.

Not necessarily. You can fake being gay. You can't fake having talent.

Kerberos · 25th June 2004, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Not necessarily. You can fake being gay. You can't fake having talent.

Sure you can, well enough to fool most people at least, Don't you watch television?

Tmy · 25th June 2004, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by American
Recruitment levels are stable for all branches except the army, and retention levels are higher than ever in every branch including the army. .

THe draft does one thing. Inflate the cannon fodder ranks! Thats what they need in Iraq, a lot of foot soilders. Sure right now they are retaining alot of personel (ie they are nor letting them leave), but if you are bringing in a bunch of officers does that really help out much in Iraq??

The truth is that our military is alot busier than it was a couple of years ago, that means you need more people.

c0rbin · 25th June 2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jj

So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim?

He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die.

We could defeat North Korea easily with a decisive barage of food.

bignickel · 25th June 2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay."

There was a program on cable about gays in the military.

They discussed the British side during WW1. Evidently, saying you were gay did NOT get you out of the military.

After the war, anyone who said he was gay, was immediately kicked out of course.

If I understood what they were hinting at during the program, the gay men were assigned to navy ships as the Brit equiv of 'comfort men'. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) Now that would have been an interesting "Black Adder Marches Forth" episode...

I might have misconstrued what they were saying, of course.

Rob Lister · 25th June 2004, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bignickel

There was a program on cable about gays in the military.

They discussed the British side during WW1. Evidently, saying you were gay did NOT get you out of the military.

After the war, anyone who said he was gay, was immediately kicked out of course.

If I understood what they were hinting at during the program, the gay men were assigned to navy ships as the Brit equiv of 'comfort men'. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) Now that would have been an interesting "Black Adder Marches Forth" episode...

I might have misconstrued what they were saying, of course.

The U.S. Navy calls the stewards. They generally work in the capacity of butlers to high ranking officers.

I recall one sea story where a sailor was trying to get discharged from the navy based on the fact that he suddenly discovered himself to be gay. At the Captain's mast, the captain stepped from behind his podium and asked him to prove it.

Furious · 25th June 2004, 10:10 AM

I believe instituting the draft is actually advocated by certain peaceniks, especially during peacetime, for a few reasons:

- Totally would make future wars unpopular because then everyone is a possible candidate for the draft and would be less likely to vote for hawkish politicians.

- Assuming a fair draft, there is a great potential for lawmaker's own kids to be shipped overseas to die, which would give them pause about sending troops into a hostile territory for personal reasons, and thus probably reduce the number of military conflicts.

The theory is that we would be less likely to go to war if everyone would have to potentially fight it, instead of sending over a disproportional amount of America's poor, rural or minority population who volunteer for the military mainly for economic reasons.

Where the theory fails, IMO, is that people with influence (ultra rich, politicians) generally are able to find ways to get their kids into cushier, noncombat positions. I don't have access to sources to verify that accurately, but I believe that was the general feeling during the Vietnam era.

Grammatron · 25th June 2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jj

So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim?

He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die.

That and all those millions of people in Seol that will be leveled by artillery fire.

Michael Redman · 25th June 2004, 11:02 AM

I think we should pull all our troops out of Europe, Korea, and Japan. The idea that you need nearby troops on the ground to react to events is obsolete. Plus those folks can finally start shouldering the cost of their own security.

No draft. However, let's let only those who volunteer for national service (miliraty or civilian) vote or hold office. We should also institute a foreign legion as a fast track to US citizenship. We would have plenty of troops to patrol the streets of Bagdahd and Kabul. And Teheran. And Toronto. And New York City.

24th June 2004, 08:49 PM	#1
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	The False Promises of a Draft http://slate.msn.com/id/2102858/ Quote: It's a complex business, calculating how many troops a nation needs. No matter how you do the math, though, one thing is clear: The United States doesn't have enough. Should we, must we, bring back the draft to fill the gaps? We need to do something. Simply to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan (and we're doing a less-than-adequate job of that), the U.S. Army has mobilized all its available brigades, delayed their rotations back home, and turned the Guard and Reserves' "weekend warriors" into full-time soldiers. Despite all this, the Army still needs to bring in 4,000 troops from the once-untouchable garrison in South Korea. More desperately, it's ordering to Iraq members of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the outfit in Ft. Irwin, Calif., that trains all other Army units for desert warfare. This is like melting down the lathe to make more metal. I don't see a draft being well received by the American public. What would happen if the draft were re-instituted? Quote: Nonetheless, we do need more troops. How do we get them, if not from a draft? The inescapable answer is that we have to pay more for them, maybe a lot more. Those of us who do not volunteer enjoy more freedom, leisure, and in many cases income, as a result. It is not asking too much to sacrifice some of that extra income for those who risk the ultimate sacrifice.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

24th June 2004, 09:26 PM	#3
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service. They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

24th June 2004, 09:47 PM	#4
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,465	Quote: Originally posted by American The only way a draft will happen is if an American city gets nuked, and we suddenly decide to fight back in an all-out worldwide war. That could very well happen, but otherwise the current chance of a draft is zero. So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim? He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

24th June 2004, 09:49 PM	#5
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,465	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service. Peaceniks ask for draft? What kind of stuff did Corplinx Imbibe here tonight? They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics. Corplinx continues, The war of lies never ends, They just get bigger.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

24th June 2004, 09:54 PM	#7
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by Tricky Corplinx, are you outta your tree? I have never heard any peacenik begging for forced military service. The idea is abhorrant to them. (I myself am not a peacenik, but I do object to the Iraq war.) Some of them claim it is going to happen, but I don't know any who welcome it. Why don't you do a poll of the liberals here to see? Oh really? While a few liberals have claimed we didn't send enough troops to do the job in Iraq (though I hear conservatives making that claim more often), I don't know of a single leftie who suggested we should start yanking troops off the streets to fill the ranks in Iraq. Really, Cor, you usually are not this out of it. I know that strawmen are not your specialty, so I can understand that this one is so poorly constructed. I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

24th June 2004, 09:12 PM	#2
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	DoD commanders don't want it, the volunteer service members don't want it, the citizenry doesn't want it, average politicians don't want it. Recruitment levels are stable for all branches except the army, and retention levels are higher than ever in every branch including the army. It would only serve to weaken the military, hurt morale, divide the population due to the various exemptions (medical, educational, religious objectors) and the utter sense of unfairness that anyone should be called to serve in any capacity whatsoever. The only way a draft will happen is if an American city gets nuked, and we suddenly decide to fight back in an all-out worldwide war. That could very well happen, but otherwise the current chance of a draft is zero.

24th June 2004, 09:51 PM	#6
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx The funny thing, its the peaceniks who keep begging for forced military service. Corplinx, are you outta your tree? I have never heard any peacenik begging for forced military service. The idea is abhorrant to them. (I myself am not a peacenik, but I do object to the Iraq war.) Some of them claim it is going to happen, but I don't know any who welcome it. Why don't you do a poll of the liberals here to see? Quote: Originally posted by corplinx They usually base this on a faulty assertion that we don't have enough troops. Apparently, peace at any cost types don't understand logistics. Oh really? While a few liberals have claimed we didn't send enough troops to do the job in Iraq (though I hear conservatives making that claim more often), I don't know of a single leftie who suggested we should start yanking troops off the streets to fill the ranks in Iraq. Really, Cor, you usually are not this out of it. I know that strawmen are not your specialty, so I can understand that this one is so poorly constructed.

24th June 2004, 10:26 PM	#8
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic. Maybe I have. Could you provide a link to cure me of my ignorance?

24th June 2004, 11:05 PM	#9
Nasarius Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 672	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx I guess you missed Charles Rangel and other liberal senate democrats. I'll forgive you for this one since obviously you are ignorant on the topic. They were not "begging for forced military service". They were trying to prove a point. Sorry you missed it.
Nasarius Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 672	__________________ "Did you understand the music...or was it all in vain?" ~ Roger Waters

24th June 2004, 11:24 PM	#10
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by Nasarius They were not "begging for forced military service". They were trying to prove a point. Sorry you missed it. Yes, to be fair to Charlie Rangel he didn't really mean it. He was just trying to prove a point. The point being that if a Senator mentions bringing back the draft it will get some talking heads to mention and create "buzz".
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

24th June 2004, 11:25 PM	#11
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	For reference Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

24th June 2004, 11:48 PM	#12
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay." Homosexuality, it's better than Canada.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

25th June 2004, 12:27 AM	#13
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	Quote: Originally posted by LostAngeles What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay." Homosexuality, it's better than Canada. Plus you don't have to suffer the stigmatisim of being openly Canadian.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

25th June 2004, 03:39 AM	#14
coalesce Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 3,340	Quote: Originally posted by Blue Monk Plus you don't have to suffer the stigmatism of being openly Canadian. And you'll probably get your own show on the Bravo channel. Michael
	__________________ "I want the kids in bed by nine, the dog fed, the yard watered and the gate locked. And get a note to the milkman NO MORE CHEESE!"

25th June 2004, 05:46 AM	#15
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Quote: Originally posted by LostAngeles What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay." Quote: Originally posted by coalesce And you'll probably get your own show on the Bravo channel. Not necessarily. You can fake being gay. You can't fake having talent.

25th June 2004, 06:03 AM	#16
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Quote: Originally posted by Tricky Not necessarily. You can fake being gay. You can't fake having talent. Sure you can, well enough to fool most people at least, Don't you watch television?
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

25th June 2004, 06:04 AM	#17
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Quote: Originally posted by American Recruitment levels are stable for all branches except the army, and retention levels are higher than ever in every branch including the army. . THe draft does one thing. Inflate the cannon fodder ranks! Thats what they need in Iraq, a lot of foot soilders. Sure right now they are retaining alot of personel (ie they are nor letting them leave), but if you are bringing in a bunch of officers does that really help out much in Iraq?? The truth is that our military is alot busier than it was a couple of years ago, that means you need more people.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

25th June 2004, 07:36 AM	#18
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Quote: Originally posted by jj So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim? He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die. We could defeat North Korea easily with a decisive barage of food.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

25th June 2004, 08:04 AM	#19
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,723	Quote: Originally posted by LostAngeles What's great is that if they resinstate a draft and you don't want to go, you no longer have to flee to Canada. Simply say, "I'm gay." There was a program on cable about gays in the military. They discussed the British side during WW1. Evidently, saying you were gay did NOT get you out of the military. After the war, anyone who said he was gay, was immediately kicked out of course. If I understood what they were hinting at during the program, the gay men were assigned to navy ships as the Brit equiv of 'comfort men'. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) Now that would have been an interesting "Black Adder Marches Forth" episode... I might have misconstrued what they were saying, of course.
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

25th June 2004, 08:19 AM	#20
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by bignickel There was a program on cable about gays in the military. They discussed the British side during WW1. Evidently, saying you were gay did NOT get you out of the military. After the war, anyone who said he was gay, was immediately kicked out of course. If I understood what they were hinting at during the program, the gay men were assigned to navy ships as the Brit equiv of 'comfort men'. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) Now that would have been an interesting "Black Adder Marches Forth" episode... I might have misconstrued what they were saying, of course. The U.S. Navy calls the stewards. They generally work in the capacity of butlers to high ranking officers. I recall one sea story where a sailor was trying to get discharged from the navy based on the fact that he suddenly discovered himself to be gay. At the Captain's mast, the captain stepped from behind his podium and asked him to prove it.

25th June 2004, 10:10 AM	#21
Furious Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 295	I believe instituting the draft is actually advocated by certain peaceniks, especially during peacetime, for a few reasons: - Totally would make future wars unpopular because then everyone is a possible candidate for the draft and would be less likely to vote for hawkish politicians. - Assuming a fair draft, there is a great potential for lawmaker's own kids to be shipped overseas to die, which would give them pause about sending troops into a hostile territory for personal reasons, and thus probably reduce the number of military conflicts. The theory is that we would be less likely to go to war if everyone would have to potentially fight it, instead of sending over a disproportional amount of America's poor, rural or minority population who volunteer for the military mainly for economic reasons. Where the theory fails, IMO, is that people with influence (ultra rich, politicians) generally are able to find ways to get their kids into cushier, noncombat positions. I don't have access to sources to verify that accurately, but I believe that was the general feeling during the Vietnam era.
Furious Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 295	__________________ Total noob

25th June 2004, 10:17 AM	#22
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by jj So, then, slick, do you think that's why the Shrub is ignoring the Lunatic Mr. Kim? He knows that all Kim can hit is either Seattle or San Francisco, and that would be great for the shrub, now, wouldn't it? Get rid of a big block of opposed voters, and give him a reason to send the po' folks kids off to die. That and all those millions of people in Seol that will be leveled by artillery fire.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

25th June 2004, 11:02 AM	#23
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	I think we should pull all our troops out of Europe, Korea, and Japan. The idea that you need nearby troops on the ground to react to events is obsolete. Plus those folks can finally start shouldering the cost of their own security. No draft. However, let's let only those who volunteer for national service (miliraty or civilian) vote or hold office. We should also institute a foreign legion as a fast track to US citizenship. We would have plenty of troops to patrol the streets of Bagdahd and Kabul. And Teheran. And Toronto. And New York City.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain