"Considering you've claimed repeatedly (AND IN ALL CAPS IN SOME CASES) that a draft will not, under any circumstances be needed or implimented and it's just a democrat ploy, that seems like an odd way to end your argument. " Not a draft. Mandatory 2 year Military service for all people who turn 18. Not so much as a means of supplying combat troops but to give them money for school, keep them out of trouble etc..etc.. Many countries do it. Granted, we have alot of 18 year olds and I dont know what you would do with them all. Alot of todays youth need direction and leadership. Will it happen, no. Maybe not the armed forces even, say a national student reserve or something. Basicly, get keep them out of troulbe, give them a free education, and teach them some values and skills.
I'm at that prime age to be drafted, and its not that I'm not patriotic, but that I'm a coward and I have a sense of self-preservation. But I know what I'm gonna do if the draft is reinstated... I'm gonna get my Ph.D. in Economics!
why do so many people think of the military as a place to 'fix' people? like convicts, slackers, psychos, etc..? look, if a country is worth living in, it should be worth dying for, problem, is that the politicos mess things up, that's why only their sons & daughters should be the first ones to go into the draft. this way, Dad has to plan wars well or his sonny gets blown into flying splat chunks
draft? mandatory service? it's just semantics. They are the same in every way that matters. Exactly. Anyway, from what I've seen history shows that "old timers" have been complaining about the lazy, undisciplined, soulless youth since we first rubbed two sticks together for fire. Every generation thinks they're better than the next and die absolutely sure the "decline" of THEIR morals and standards displayed by the young will end the world. Only the most pompous of asses would seriously believe that in the big picture of history, their (or their children's) generation means any more that all the others that have passed or will follow.
"protect your country", thats the point here. No countries have attacked america or it's allies. I'm all for protecting your own but when a leader decides he needs a nation to blame and throws his army at them, he's on his own in my opinion. I cannot begin to imagine how frustrating it must be for bush, terrorism of this type has no obvious target for a military style response but tough shit. Attacking someone with a paper thin connection doesn't exactly get my patriotic juices flowing. So don't give me this "family, community, country" shit, it was strongly suspected that bush didn't have a leg to stand on when this thing started and more and more evidence is uncovered everyday proving it. I'll fight if I have to but that "do it for your country" crap doesn't fly when the reason the target was chosen is simply that they couldn't find anyone else to attack.
Well put. It seems that millions of Americans do not understand or care about the difference between defense and offense. They support the troops no matter what.
Actually, this will probably surprise you but I'm 100% behind supporting the troops. Even with the news of the terrible abuses that have emerged, I believe that does not represent the majority. In fact the US probably has the smartest, best equipped, best trained and overall effective military in the history of the human race. It's vital we remember that the troops (in every democracy) are just a tool of the leaders, they can't choose where they go anymore than the moon can choose it's orbit. They me be in a bad war for bad reasons but the blame goes to the leaders that employ them. I do not want to see what happened to the vietnam vets happen again when the iraq vets return, the treatment of those vets was almost as disgraceful as the war itself. It's important that we focus the blame where it belongs. Supporting the troops but not the war isn't necessarily a contradiction.
We had a discussion about that here: Should we really honour the modern soldier?. The comic therein says it best. I think supporting the troops but not the war is a contradiction. If the soldier doesn't share the blame then no doubt wars will continue forever since those who pull the strings (that is, those who profit from war) will always be able to count on the public supporting the war via the troops. The Vietnam vets certainly got what they deserved. They killed 2 million civilians. A cursory look on the web shows that killing civilians was a policy of the war hence something every vet knew about if not willingly participated in. Any documentary will show you soldiers furiously dropping high explosives on villages. Gas chambers or napalm, what's the difference?
In my experience your average soldier is a kid that needed help with paying for school and happened to have the misfortune of joining up just before a war. They can't just walk away, they're going wether they like it or not. Thats even more the case with vietnam as the majority were drafted. Once you're in hostile territory it's either you or them at that point, the validity of the war is secondary to getting home alive. I guess I'm not so cynical as to believe most knew it was civillians they were killing especially because the enemy and civilians were indistinguishable. That being said I do see your point, I just honestly doubt your average soldier would kill a civilian if he knew them to be innocent bystanders. Perhaps I'm naive, I don't have any war experience so I can't really say for sure.
It was the US policy of the Vietnam war that any male of military age be killed. The easiest way to do that was to wipe out any group of Vietnamese wherever found. Even Kerry was ordered to destroy a village and kill the people within it, not just the men of military age. He refused. It would be a lot easier for soldiers to refuse to offend if they knew they would be disrespected for offending. This soldier stopped fighting for oil and I’m sure the respect gained from his family and friends helped him make that decision. Soldiers can just walk away. By supporting troops in offensive war you do support the war in every way that counts.
I'm still not positive I believe that, I'll look more up about it. If it's true I will have to reconsider my views in this area.
When they walk away they get one year in prison. They get prison because the public supports the troops no matter what.
Well, they get prison because an army can't have it's soldiers wandering away. In non-democratic countries where puplic support is meaningless soldiers going awol get shot, getting punished for leaving your army mid battle is a pretty standard international truth (public support or lack of it doesn't really play a role this area). But as I said you've got me thinking now, I'll have to research this more before I make a final conclusion. Thanks for the input, it's an angle I hadn't considered.
For all you "draftees" here is a interesting read: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040524-unlikely-draft.htm
A key quote therein: The only thing worse than a general draft might be to study & work hard for years at developing a skill, just so Bush Oil can profit from it while you live in a war zone earning $18,000 per year. So the draft will affect only high-tech and health care professionals and Muslims; say, 10% of the people between the ages of 18 and 34? And this from a “draft not likely” article. The rest of the text sounds just like what CEOs say when they merge with another company: “There will be no layoffs. Absolutely not. Last thing on our minds. Never never never.”
You guys haven't seemed to notice but people currently in the military are not being allowed out when their time is up. This is compulsory service just like a draft and in a way it's even worse as these men and women have done their time and are not being allowed out. Letting them out and instituting a draft would be fairer than this as it's not fair that some people are forced to fight forever basically, while others never have to. This is a concept that was well understood during Vietnam. People did their 4 years and if they survived they were then allowed out and replaced by someone else from the draft. Actually all these people who "support our troops" should recognize how horribly unfair this is, and should be clamoring for the reinstatment of a draft so that they can really "support out troops".
wow emphryio, that's an impressive load of crap you crammed into such a short post. I don't even know where to start.
that's part of the idea from "Starship Troopers", only vets had the vote in their Federation, they earned the right to be "citizens", after federal duty
I like that idea, lets see how much support this war really has, theres recruiting stations in every major city & many of the 'burgs, will all the Hard-Right Repubs 'please stand up' for your beliefs, raise your right hand & repeat after me....
