Return of the Draft - US

[Lady Thorn]

*shrug* I struggle with anything military after 1800, in all truth. Getting my mind to the 20th Century is a feat on its own. And I am pretty certain they did carry sabres... I remember being told this by someone with an unhealthy interest in weapons history, but I shall go forth and check it out when I remember. Anyway, that was a little off the topic.

And you're right, rationing is indeed another debate, like the uniform of officers, and should be left for other places.

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.

Oh oh oh... lovely. I would point out the "no personal comments/rudeness" rule, if I weren't amused. But once again, another topic for another time.

But back to topic.

A mock draft? Hm... I suppose a mock-warning for a draft. Suggestion that one is certain to come in an unspecified time, which would work in the way you mention, Janitor. I don't know that I'd actually have an issue with that. Everyone who joined up at the suggestion of a draft would have done so of their own free will, so hm... I would actually think that the best course of action. No one coerced against their principles to fight, but more joining up to fight the war. Leaving out my obvious and already-known objections to war itself, I feel this a sterling plan.

Of course, another alternative would be to perhaps find some way to end the foolish war and stop people dying, but never mind.

[The Janitor]

Oct 14, 2008 8:27:49 GMT -5 Lady Thorn said:

I am pretty certain they did carry sabres... I remember being told this by someone with an unhealthy interest in weapons history, but I shall go forth and check it out when I remember.

I'm pretty sure they didn't. Only an idiot would. Except I keep forgetting that we're talking about the British military. So that should say something on it's own. I can't think of anything they got right weapon wise. Although I have flirted with the SMLE and Sten gun.

I'm going to call it quits on this debate since we have a problem with staying on topic.

[Linx]

Well, here go my two cents in accordance with the title:

Alright, my points are as follows. Despite reluctance to admit it on the governments part, the U.S. is in need of soldiers, in order to maintain stability overseas. The draft was looked to be reinstated for this, and one other option that I know of that falls along the lines. As of a year or two ago, skirmishes broke out in the Balkans between Turkey and the nomads that live in the mountains I believe. If the conflict were to erupt in full, the U.S government would be forced to intervene because of an alliance with Turkey. However, this is not possible because our soldiers are sorely depleted, and we have enough trouble holding steady in Iraq and everywhere else that the U.S feels it needs to meddle.

As an effect of a full blown conflict in the Balkans, the U.S would have no choice but to reinstate the draft in order to bring up the amount of soldiers serving in active duty, in order to maintain a military presence everywhere else as it feels it must, and in order to resolve this conflict within the Balkans themselves. My personal feelings are that this is just stupid, as I've stated about most U.S policies. I think the U.S should mind it's own buisness for once, and fix itself before gallavanting off to the aid of another country in order to indebt them to us, or in order to make them more amiable to our country.

Thus my two cents end, feel free to critique wherever, and do note that I don't care and won't take offense at any wording used. Have at it then.

[Lady Thorn]

Echoing your third paragraph, I too would like to know exactly why the US has to go to the Balkans. What is it to them what happens in Eastern Europe? If the country wants less strain on its soldiers... perhaps less of the invadey behaviour? This would seem a logical course of action. Of course, "keeping peace" and bringing democracy are noble things, but why exactly is the US charged with this solemn duty, especially in regions blatantly distanced from the aforementioned "land of the free" or whatever epithet one chooses to use.

in order to maintain stability overseas

I'm sure the heathen lands of Europe and the East can care for themselves...

[The Janitor]

Oct 15, 2008 4:25:06 GMT -5 Lady Thorn said:

Echoing your third paragraph, I too would like to know exactly why the US has to go to the Balkans. What is it to them what happens in Eastern Europe?

in order to maintain stability overseas

I'm sure the heathen lands of Europe and the East can care for themselves...

If the conflict were to erupt in full, the U.S government would be forced to intervene because of an alliance with Turkey.

Of course that includes the heathen lands of Africa and the far East. (Coughs) Zimbabwe. (Coughs) Burma. (Coughs)

Some people need to understand that some things are bigger than they and I.

we have enough trouble holding steady in Iraq and everywhere else that the U.S feels it needs to meddle.

Wow.... That is surprising since I've heard so much about the Iraqi military standing on it's own and starting to do quite well in the logistics area. I've even heard that they'll have one hell of an Airforce not too far in the future if things go well (election wise). However it's kind of funny that I never seen any of these things on the news.

To stay on topic I still don't think there is need of a draft. Russia could invade half of Eastern Europe tomorrow and they'd be pushed out in less than a month. Of course we (the US) would be doing most of the heavy lifting.

[Lady Thorn]

Of course that includes the heathen lands of Africa and the far East. (Coughs) Zimbabwe. (Coughs) Burma. (Coughs)

*sigh*... Damn it. Thinking about it, I suspect military endeavour in Zimbabwe would do very little, thankfully now that democratic methods are being used. Alliances formed and all that. Sure and it's not going to be anywhere near perfect, but no one needed to gallivant into anyone else's country, so all's... if not good, then better than it could be. As for Burma... ugh... grief. No comment. It'd end up way off topic.

Russia could invade half of Eastern Europe tomorrow and they'd be pushed out in less than a month. Of course we (the US) would be doing most of the heavy lifting.

I presume that's just asking for me to make a catty reply. Damn that I'm so easy to goad...
Do you suppose the rest of Europe would just sit there going "duuuuhhh" as the tanks rolled by? Sure and Russia have us under their oil-hogging heel, but I somehow think people would take unkindly to Poland being trampled by an invader this close to the Second World War. And an American invasion of Europe would probably not be best received... by anyone. Not everyone is as disliking of Russia as America.

[The Janitor]

You amuse me LT when it comes to foreign affairs LT.

Oct 15, 2008 19:42:30 GMT -5 Lady Thorn said:

Do you suppose the rest of Europe would just sit there going "duuuuhhh" as the tanks rolled by? Sure and Russia have us under their oil-hogging heel, but I somehow think people would take unkindly to Poland being trampled by an invader this close to the Second World War.

And an American invasion of Europe would probably not be best received... by anyone. Not everyone is as disliking of Russia as America.

Nope. I think most of them would love to say "I believe it is peace for our time." Few in Europe have the guts for war. Few have the means. Best Europe has to offer are running out of vital equipment for it's troops in what is considered a cakewalk to the US military. Besides. Who said Poland was all of Eastern Europe?

Who said we would have to invade? All we need on the ground is already stationed in Europe. Cold War era already had us prepared to fight while outnumbered 5 to 1. Considering our modern arsenal we own the skies. Like a certain joke by a certain comedian about the French which would apply to Europe. They hate us until someone is pushing over their border.