Return of the Draft - US

[strawberry]

I thought I would try and be serious for once.

I read on yahoo news that we need more soldiers. In another thread someone said that the draft might be a possibility and that females should be included in the draft. Is it honorable to run from the draft or should flightees be ashamed of themselves? Do you feel that the draft should now be included to women as well?

I do not think that the draft should ever, ever go into effect. It's always a rich mans war but a poor mans fight. What have I got to fight for? Friends, family, home? That's what one person said I should fight for and called all would be draft deserters pathetic. The war isn't even on U.S. soil! I've got high class friends and they basically don't even know that a war is going on because it doesn't effect them. The war doesn't effect me because I've got no relatives in it, nor friends in it or know anyone in real life who are in it. Why force people to fight when they don't want to? There are people out there who will willing give their lives to this country, why nab someone uninspired? I also do not think the draft should be put into effect so I have no comment on whether woman should be put into it or not but I am up for equality and that means both men and women.

[Lady Thorn]

I'm going to assume that the draft is the same as conscription. If I'm wrong, do feel free to jeer at my ignorance.

I am much of the same opinion. I object to conscription, except in times of dire need, when one's homeland is in jeopardy, and only as a last resort. I am by nature one who would be a conscientious objector, and so I am bound to say that a draft-dodger is not a dishonourable thing to be. Actually, saying that, I would offer myself for any service that didn't involve my killing people, but that still would make me a conchie, and no one has much truck with those of us with a moral objection to taking life. I find that there is much honour in sticking to one's principles in the face of the law of the land. And if they dodge simply from cowardice? Well, to be frank, I see cowardice as a valuable survival trait, and who can blame us for our genetics? Either way, I would not be one of the women standing on street-corners handing out white feathers.

As for equality, I'm torn. While there is much to say for ending sexism, I cannot help but think that war is one of those situations to which equality may not always apply. Like it or not, men and women are physiologically different, and perhaps women, especially women conscripted rather than volunteered, since volunteers are likely to have a higher level of fitness anyway, are going to be less physically able to fight than men. Granted, if it comes to conscription, they're not going to be too fussy, but I feel it's rather a pointless exercise. A point of example would be the Royal Navy Divers, who are currently still allowed to be sexist because no woman has ever passed the physical test for entry. It's not that they haven't tried, simply that they have all failed. I accept the fact that I belong to the frailer sex.

[The Janitor]

I feel that it is dishonorable to flee. You know the law and enjoy your rights as a citizen. If you've got a problem with being conscripted emigrate and renouce your citizenship. I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to including women.

As to the whole "fairness" arguement. Life isn't fair. Deal with it. If someone thinks that it is wrong that rich kids can avoid the draft by going to college they have everything to change that available to them.

War [can] affect you whether or not it is taking place on US soil. By the way, we are not really at war. Some people are just too stupid to realize it.

As for the comment concerning "forcing people who don't want to fight". No one is forcing them to fight. They have a choice. Volunteer for a noncombat role, volunteer for an alternative service, or leave the country then give up their citizenship.

I do not think the draft should be brought back. I do not want it to come back. I feel that we are doing better with an all-volunteer military force. However I wouldn't have any problems with the draft coming back. If it did I'd simply volunteer rather than wait to be called into service.

Semi-on topic.

At least you're still paid and taken care of when drafted.

I dislike pacifists. There are only two I do not dislike.

[Lady Thorn]

I understand your view on it being dishonourable, but I still believe that one can stick to one's principles. I know I sit here at university, gladly enjoying the money the government gives me to do so, and enjoying the good health my government pays for me to enjoy, with the peace kept by the policemen the government pays, and so on, but I do not feel that this gives the government a right on my morals. I will not go against what I believe and kill people. As you say, noncombat roles are available, and I personally would gladly join up in the Red Cross, or in Intelligence, or translation services, or anything that didn't involve me killing people (which was still frowned upon when last conscription was used in the UK, and conchies were hated, even when the were stretcher-bearers for the Red Cross, which is a crazy dangerous job), but some people believe that to even support an army in a non-combat role is to support killing, which goes against their morals, and I am completely ok with that. There are enough people who are willing to fight to make up for it, and there are still necessary roles that would need to be filled in the home country while the fighting went on (such as coal-mining in the second world war, which my grandfather did, and in fact wanted to fight, but was forced to remain home as his job was so vital). Obviously, many people would see those who object to even non-combat roles as ducking out on their obligations and duties to a state which has cared for them, but the roles available back home are just as vital, because, in war, the home needs to be maintained too, people still need to be fed, electricity still produced, and other such things.

Life indeed isn't fair, and we are but fools to try to make it so, but there is a reason why those in college possibly aren't called up... I don't know how it works in the U.S., but here (in the way-back-when, goodness knows how it goes now), those of richer background would be called up as officer class, well, encouraged, and they often went willingly because it was what was done. It was one's duty. Does that not happen in the U.S.? Because the officers, while often seen as twits and fools with too much education, were really and truly in a very dangerous position. They would be killed first, because of their distinctive uniforms.
Of course, there is always the other explanation, which isn't fair, but is logical. Those with a higher level of education are likely to go into certain of the necessary jobs (most particularly doctor etc.) that are vital, war or otherwise, and so it is foolish to pull them away from that when they could be learning to help and cure people. Obviously it's not just doctors, but those with a higher level of education (moneyed or otherwise), often go on to do valuable services to the country, generally proportionate to level of education (depending on subject), and so one would be removing the potential of the next generation if one were to send them off to die, which, generally, is what conscription is. Cannon-fodder. This is educational elitism, of course, and as such despised by anyone who wants true equality (woohoo for the unattainable communist ideal), but it is logical and sensible and so it happens. Then again, I'm a bit biased on this one.

*hopes is one of the un-dislike pacifists*

[strawberry]

I'm not quite sure if here in America, ages ago who got to be officers, maybe Janitor and his unlike pacifist ways may answer that.

But why should a person even have to really flee anyways in America, home of the free and brave and all that? America is home to freedom of choice, and that should not be if you want french fries or onion rings with your value meal. If it's not a war then how do you explain all the soldiers dying each day?

[The Janitor]

Concering vital roles in the country. How many people from 18-25 are handling them that cannot be replaced?

There are two types of officers. Comissioned officers are what you're talking about LT. I don't remember what the requirements are to be one, but having a lot of money isn't one of them. It might get them the job, but I doubt they'll keep it. Their jobs are not dangerous unless the feces really hits the fan or they're a complete idiot. Also while you're still stuck in the age of the roman empire, as far as I know officers do not prance around the field in distinctive uniforms. If they do they're a complete idiot.

Arguement that noncombat roles is killing is absolute BS.

Also this qualifies for BS:

send them off to die, which, generally, is what conscription is

They're being sent off to fight or fill needed jobs.

They don't have to flee the country. They can stay and choose between [conscription or noncombat/alternative service] or jail. If they don't like the law then they can try to change it before they have to choose.

Oct 12, 2008 13:07:10 GMT -5 @strawberry said:

If it's not a war then how do you explain all the soldiers dying each day?

First only congress can declare war. Second it's reconstruction, security, and counter terrorism. We defeated the enemy. Now we just have to help fix stuff and keep everything in order until Iraqi forces can take care of everything on their own. It's no different from the situation Allied Forces had to deal with after the second world war ended. If we were to just leave we'll forget a major lesson from the end of the First World War.

[shadows]

Yeah....not getting into a debate her, I'll just voice my opinion and go. I think females should and will be included in the draft but only untill a certian number is taken and no they shouldn't be placed into combat positions in my opinion. I think we should have a draft due to the fact that we're not doing anything else that signifies that we're in a war. Before there was rationing and such things but now we don't even limit fuel anymore, so basically our resources are being burnt on both ends. Also our resources are being poured into recruiting campaigns and "bonuses" for officers. If a draft were to be taken into effect it would save much more money, and with the increased military presence it would cause the terrorists to faulter and maybe save a few lives (Not only American). I'm speaking from a military stand-point because I am a soldier, so I know people are going to try and argue this with me so I will state once more. This is My opinion and mine alone, it doesn't make it true but it also doesn't make it false. Thanks for reading this and have a nice day. *bows out*

[The Janitor]

Oct 12, 2008 21:56:48 GMT -5 @shadows said:

If a draft were to be taken into effect it would save much more money,

I'll disagree. It wouldn't save any money and would actually cost more money. Why? Let's put it this way. You my friend are one very expensive piece of equipment in the US military's arsenal.

[aiden]

Oct 12, 2008 22:14:12 GMT -5 The Janitor said:

I'll disagree. It wouldn't save any money and would actually cost more money. Why? Let's put it this way. You my friend are one very expensive piece of equipment in the US military's arsenal.

And a damn sexy one at that.



Sorry, I had to say it. I'll leave now with this....

If the draft was reinstated, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I love living in a country where I can have my own job, live my own life, and make my own choices. I love living in a country where I don't have to worry about my father selling me to a 60 year old man at age 8 and having 12 kids to him. I'll take my freeom and I'll gladly support the people that defend it from whatever enemy comes around. And I would fight for it as well. If it came down to it I would join because I do support those that have been brave enough to take the risks upon themselves so that I can sleep in a warm bed at night and live my own life how I want.

I may not always agree with the presidents, or the leaders of our government, but I support the effects those people's choices have on the military, because it directly affects my life. My husband is a soldier, I have many friends who are also married to soldiers, or are soldiers themselves, and those people are all heroes to me. They keep the fights away from my home at risk of thier own lives, and I think it's brave, especialy because they chose that position. So yes, I would join if the draft was reinstated, because I've had the example set before me, and I would want to keep my country safe so that when I have my own family, they can have the freedom that I have gotten in my life.

[Samael]

In my school we have a few teachers (women and men alike) who escaped the draft via college, if the draft ever did come around (and I was of age 18 is it?) I would most likely escape it via college, any ways. I have quite a few people in Iraq or around that area who are in the armed forces. Lets see when my dad was with his now ex wife my uncle was the person who got the pleasure of picking up scattered body parts, and other such things.

My old step-sisters husband was a soilder also, they were moved around a lot, and then my step-dads brother is one of the people who drives a tank or helps drive it how ever it works. I mean I'm all for it, if I had to I would pry be in one of those off things. not acutal combat. My uncle Mike well ex uncle was acutally pretty shell shocked when he got back, cause as I said before he got the pleasure of clearing the limbs, and dead bodies off the side of the road, and if I remember it was a while ago he was walking along side the road and they were following one of the jeeps and it went over a bridge and he watched a bunch of his friends get blown to smitherrines.

Any ways, I'd pry if I was 18 (year and 3/4) I'd pry escape off to college... Wars just not my kind of thing, I think there is enough willing people to fight personally, I can think of a bunch of people below me, above me in High School who always mention "When I graduate I am going right into the military!" and its always said in the most exciting tone possible.

[Lady Thorn]

There are two types of officers. Comissioned officers are what you're talking about LT. I don't remember what the requirements are to be one, but having a lot of money isn't one of them. It might get them the job, but I doubt they'll keep it. Their jobs are not dangerous unless the feces really hits the fan or they're a complete idiot. Also while you're still stuck in the age of the roman empire, as far as I know officers do not prance around the field in distinctive uniforms. If they do they're a complete idiot.

I'm not talking about Roman Empire type distinctive uniforms... not mad helmets and such. I mean, the Commissioned Officers (thank-you) tended to carry different weaponry (I think they still had sabres in WWII when everyone else was rifles and bayonets), they also had a different style of clothing and other things that, when put together in the scope of an enemy sniper rifle made them distinctive and easy to kill. I don't know about more modern than WWII, I'm afraid, so that's a bit redundant, perhaps.

And having a lot of money wasn't a requirement, but they tended to be from the moneyed upper-classes, and even now, there still exists a certain leaning towards that considering that many of them attend the Sandhurst-esque places, though I suppose it must have become less marked now.

Arguement that noncombat roles is killing is absolute BS.

I said it was supporting killing. And I can see the legitimacy of the argument, even if I don't agree with it myself.

Yeah....not getting into a debate her, I'll just voice my opinion and go.

I feel this somewhat defeats the idea of a fair debate if one says one's piece and departs. We have no chance to question what you have said, or to ask for qualification of anything we find unclear.

I think we should have a draft due to the fact that we're not doing anything else that signifies that we're in a war.

Apart from killing people....
This isn't the greatest argument, to be honest. And an increased military presence with rationing, would put a strain on the USA, and most certainly on popular opinion of the war, since no one likes to be rationed, and so would be highly detrimental to your cause in the long run. A short period of things being hard to get will soon have people no longer wanting to march across the world, invade another continent and claim to be keeping the peace.

[shadows]

Ok, let's debate, why not. A war with no rationing sends the national debpt sky rockting much much faster than if there were none, thought tht was common knowledge....guess not.

[Lady Thorn]

Please read the rules of the debate room. All posts must be three full sentences long or more.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't "send the national debt sky rocketing", though I would suggest that to be hyperbole, I'm just saying that it would make the war even more unpopular than it already is. No one likes to be rationed and told they can't have as much as they want. Add it to problems already extant from the "credit crunch" and so on, and you will get a very cheesed-off nation. And I suspect the government do not want to annoy their voters, especially if they want to maintain their world-domination plans war.

[shadows]

Please forgive me oh wise one for not typing enough sentences. Anyway, world domination plans? Why would we wait untill no, when we're at our weakest to causew these plans to go underway? Why would we leave people have free will? If it were the military, we'd declare marshal law and propagand the hell out of the country to have a nazi germany stance. (Where the people of the country think everything we do is right which obviously isn't happening here.) Also, if things were rationed true it would piss people off but it would also show what war truly is and to what extent people have become selfish and blind. A little lacking in their lives wouldn't hurt. We've become far too reliant on the privledges we have been granted, after all......you're ability to debate and argue your point against any coinfrontation was given to you by people who had the guts to die and bleed for your sake...though I don't know why they'd do that.

[The Janitor]

I love how most people are stuck with the 1930s-40s train of thought.

By the way LT, I don't know exactly what British officers were carrying during the second world war. However I doubt it was a saber. US officers carried pistols and carbines. The smart ones ditched anything that marked them as an officer if they were out in the field. The ones higher up in the chain of command just didn't set foot in an area that wasn't under their control.

As for the talk about "rationing". If you want to debate that start a new thread. This is a debate about the draft coming back.

Come to think of it a mock draft would be wonderful now days. It would kill two birds with one stone. There would be more people volunteering for stuff and all the hippies would be running to Europe.