• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Bring Back the Draft?

Should the US bring back the Draft?

  • Yes, it is only fair to distribute the burden equally.

    Votes: 9 21.4%
  • Yes, if the concept is tweaked a bit.

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • I'm unsure.

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • No, but I'm not totally against the idea.

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • No, "Hell no we won't go!" Pass the doobie...

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • I have another idea, so let me explain below.

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    42

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
el Guapo said:
Discuss and be please be nice.

NO

If the cause is so underwehlming, that enough people will not volunter in one way or another, it is probably not worth fighting for.

In addition, if people will not volunteer to fight for thier way of life and society, it is doomed.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
military or some sort of national service should be mandatory for 2 consecutive years of the persons choosing between the ages of 18 and 28 - medical waivers only for the disabled.

i think professional militaries are a danger to any democracy . . . i went through basic training with kids who couldn't speak english and the team leader i had for half of my enlistment wasn't a US citizen.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,486
Points
41
I voted "yes, but tweak". Women (and womyn ;-)) should be included in the draft as well. Also, a larger part of the standing (volunteer) force should be trained to handle conflict/battle duties, while inductees would be principally used in supprt/rear echelon types of duties.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
draft

I feel strongly both ways.
If the country can do without it, good.
But if we get into something over our head and need more troops, then a draft if fairly and equitably conceived is probably the way to go. As far as I can see, its the only way to get at the sons/daughters of the more privileged (for the most part) to serve. When the Halliburton CEOs see their sons/daughters being called up, they might see warfare from a different aspect.

If, however, it is like the 60's (1860s or 1960s) when all that was needed was to have rich parents to get out of it, no.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
jresta said:
military or some sort of national service should be mandatory for 2 consecutive years of the persons choosing between the ages of 18 and 28 - medical waivers only for the disabled.

i think professional militaries are a danger to any democracy . . . i went through basic training with kids who couldn't speak english and the team leader i had for half of my enlistment wasn't a US citizen.
Kind of smacks of the Romans using German auxiliaries. It proved thier undoing.

Not really worried about the presence of non native english speaking troops in the ranks or non citizens. I also encountered both in the service and it never seemed to be an issue. In many cases, it is a shortcut to citizenship. Such people have always been a part of the ranks and should continue to be for as long as loyalty lies with wanting to be a part of the US. Thinking Von Stueben here :)
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I think that the military could establish some type of incentive for people to join before they establish a draft. Maybe have a 2-year obligation option, no strings attached, no extensions, etc. Howver I have never served, so this may be a dumb idea.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
Repo Man said:
I think that the military could establish some type of incentive for people to join before they establish a draft. Maybe have a 2-year obligation option, no strings attached, no extensions, etc. Howver I have never served, so this may be a dumb idea.
It takes 4 years of service to properly instill the discipline and methods of thinking that truly benifit the military. Less time than that and you can create a battle ready soldier with the skills required, but the actual institutional knowledge and next generation of small unit leaders have not yet developed in quantity or quality. There are exceptions.

Military service requires a 180 in thinking, the good of the whole and whats best for the unit rather than the civilian me me me outlook. Somebody has to be the last out, and thats a dangerous place to be, me me me gets that person and many others killed.

A professional military has been a danger through time. So far we have had truly exemplary behavior from our military men. I have seen no reason to doubt this at the present time. Not worried as long as the military leadership itself stays out of direct politics.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,377
Points
29
If a draft were even and included all, women, gays etc then yes I am all for it. I have always thought some sort of gov service is a good idea for folks. Be it a teacher in an inner city or poor farming town or shooting a gun service to the "community and country" is the idea and all should share it in some way.

We are in over our heads and if there is any sort of problem some where else we are big time screwed.

BIGGER MILITARY, better equiped and trained *ok sorry the army brat roots showing*
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,443
Points
34
Nope we don't need it. If we payed our guys and gals wages high enough the numbers would improve. When we have military families on food stamps, no wonder we have trouble getting folks.
 

NHPlanner

A shadow of my former self
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,945
Points
40
giff57 said:
Nope we don't need it. If we payed our guys and gals wages high enough the numbers would improve. When we have military families on food stamps, no wonder we have trouble getting folks.
I'm with giff on this one.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,173
Points
51
I think that they should… I think that there are too many lazy people who have a serious problem with authority. Something like this would help to curb many of the social problems that these people had. I also think that they do need to pay more. I am sure that they could stop spending $200 for a roll of toilet paper and such.

Freedom isn’t Free.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
I am all for reinstating the draft in the event it is necessary. I am not convinced it is (though I admit to NOT being a military force expert). It seems to be there are more efficiencies yet to be realized (ie. remove troops rom S. Korea, have NATO enhanced in Central Europe).

The all-volunteer corps is the best trained fighting unit in the history of the world.

But, if instituted I would oppose deferment for anything but serious physical disability.

I think the arguement that only the poor serve the all volunteer corps rings a bit hollow but a draft (assuming in the face of some mortal threat to America) needs to be a draft for all--Harvard sons of Senators and Barrio Boys alike.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
i'm also with giff - excellent point.

michaelskis said:
I think that they should… I think that there are too many lazy people who have a serious problem with authority. Something like this would help to curb many of the social problems that these people had. I also think that they do need to pay more. I am sure that they could stop spending $200 for a roll of toilet paper and such.

Freedom isn’t Free.
I spent 4 years active and 3 years guard and i have even more of a problem with authority as a result (the military, by nature, is an exercise in bureaucratic inefficiency). A lot of people think that everyone comes out of the army a conservative straight-shooter. I think it is what you make it and i think a lot of people come out with a much more balanced view of how things work and of their countrymen. As far as curbing social problems . . . the military is a microcosm of the US and spousal abuse, addiction, drug dealing, drive-by shootings, suicide and every other nasty we have is magnified there. Whether or not making military families middle-class families will change all of that . . . i can't say - but it is a start.



Duke said:
It takes 4 years of service to properly instill the discipline and methods of thinking that truly benifit the military. Less time than that and you can create a battle ready soldier with the skills required, but the actual institutional knowledge and next generation of small unit leaders have not yet developed in quantity or quality. There are exceptions.
I agree with all of this. Modling a private into a young NCO takes much longer than 2 years. My interest in 2 yr. mandatory service isn't for the military - it's for the country. There will always be incentives and people who are willing otherwise to stay for longer or to make a career out of it so i'm not worried that we'll have a shortage of sergeants.

Non-citizens or people who have trouble with their english doesn't bother me either. It's the percentage of them that does. The army and navy actively recruit overseas to fill the gaps left by lack of interest at home. 19 year olds aren't interested in working 60 hours a week for $15k a year but it's easy to find some struggling Filipino who will. It's not that i think it's wrong that people use it as a path to citizenship I just don't think we should have recruiting stations in Quezon or Mexico City because that makes "a mercenary force - not an American force."
(straight from the mouth of a Marine recruiter.)
 
Messages
5,352
Points
31
michaelskis said:
I think that they should… I think that there are too many lazy people who have a serious problem with authority. Something like this would help to curb many of the social problems that these people had. I also think that they do need to pay more. I am sure that they could stop spending $200 for a roll of toilet paper and such.

Freedom isn’t Free.
So you believe that the DRAFT will take care of these lazy people with social problems? The purpose of the military is to serve and protect your country, not serve as some social service agency or a cure-all for wayward citizens.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
draft

Planderella said:
So you believe that the DRAFT will take care of these lazy people with social problems? The purpose of the military is to serve and protect your country, not serve as some social service agency or a cure-all for wayward citizens.
During Vietnam they lowered the physical and mental criteria of draftees. This was "to help these individuals to improve their lives and circumstances." What really resulted was a increase in desertions, AWOLs and other violations of the UCMJ. Not a good idea. The people that go into the service with these severe problems either don't make it or are a detriment to their service.....for the most part. I'm sure there are execptions.
 
Messages
7,649
Points
29
PlannerGirl said:
If a draft were even and included all, women, gays etc then yes I am all for it.
The problem with that is that they have standards for entry. I think if you want to be that inclusive, you have to go with Heinlein's theory: accept anyone and everyone who wants to join and if they are a blind, deaf mute, you have them counting the hairs on a caterpillars back by feel or some such.

I am not really for Heinlein's theory but it had its merits. He put forth in some of his fictional works the idea that if you wanted full citizenship, you had to serve. And if you wanted to run for office, you had to serve. But "standards" would not bar anyone from enlisting.

And there are some real issues with "take everyone". But I don't feel like going into it right now. I just think that if you advocate for "take everyone", you have to consider the very real consequences and how they can practically be addressed.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,173
Points
51
Planderella said:
So you believe that the DRAFT will take care of these lazy people with social problems? The purpose of the military is to serve and protect your country, not serve as some social service agency or a cure-all for wayward citizens.
I do think that the big difference between my era and my dad era is people back then cared about things, and they had opinions. They either hated the government, or hated the government. Today, it seems that people just don’t care, mainly because they have no reason to care. They could think one thing one day, and the opposite at the same time. I also think that today too many people my age are a bit over weight because they never do anything but sit and watch TV or pay video games. I remember hearing stories when kids would sign patriotic songs in school, and say the pledge of allegiance. Now, people are mad because their kids do say the pledge, [side rant] I am still disgusted with that guy from CA who took it to the supreme court [/side rant].

Over all, the only thing worst thing is being apathetic about life. Every person that I have met from the military at least feels strongly about things in life.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
Michele Zone said:
The problem with that is that they have standards for entry. I think if you want to be that inclusive, you have to go with Heinlein's theory: accept anyone and everyone who wants to join and if they are a blind, deaf mute, you have them counting the hairs on a caterpillars back by feel or some such.

I am not really for Heinlein's theory but it had its merits. He put forth in some of his fictional works the idea that if you wanted full citizenship, you had to serve. And if you wanted to run for office, you had to serve. But "standards" would not bar anyone from enlisting.

And there are some real issues with "take everyone". But I don't feel like going into it right now. I just think that if you advocate for "take everyone", you have to consider the very real consequences and how they can practically be addressed.
Michele
I read Starship Troopers thinking I was getting a quick Sci-Fi story and I got a paradigm shift instead. I think he was right on the money with the service = full citizenship and franchise concept. Unfortunately, it will take more than a constitutional amendment to ever reach the realization of that form of government. There are too many people sucking on the teat of entitlements to ever change the system short of a total economic collapse. The situation reminds me of another book that shifted my paradigm without even bothering to use a clutch*.




*Origin: Dilbet Comic Strip
 

Lee Nellis

Cyburbian
Messages
1,369
Points
29
To require service as a prerequisite of citizenship really is a paradigm shift. It would eliminate the philosophical basis for everything else in our system, which is that we all have certain natural, inalienable rights simply as a consequence of our very being. I acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't see the trap that having well defined rights without well-defined responsibilities would lead to, but I don't think anyone should underestimate the philosophical difference, or the consequences that difference could have. There are lots of sci-fi novels set in worlds where one class of people is confined to a permanent ghetto, while another makes the rules. You all are assuming that you will be on one side of the wall, not the other.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
You know what happens when you assume...

Lee Nellis said:
To require service as a prerequisite of citizenship really is a paradigm shift. It would eliminate the philosophical basis for everything else in our system, which is that we all have certain natural, inalienable rights simply as a consequence of our very being. I acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't see the trap that having well defined rights without well-defined responsibilities would lead to, but I don't think anyone should underestimate the philosophical difference, or the consequences that difference could have. There are lots of sci-fi novels set in worlds where one class of people is confined to a permanent ghetto, while another makes the rules. You all are assuming that you will be on one side of the wall, not the other.
I'm not assuming that which you assume I assume.
I'm assuming that perhaps our current model of governance is not the last word on the subject in the long march of time and humanity.
I'm assuming that a renter trashes a house about 4 out of 10 times and a homeowner trashes his house 1 out of 100 times.
I'm assuming that representative democracy has many more entitlement pimps and panderers than producers.
I'm assuming that the so-called open minds cabal on the left are capable of considering more than what Hillary and John tell them, and they might really have good intentions.
I’m assuming that Sci-Fi may contain some gemstones of value on occasion, and the source is not suspect.
I’m assuming that a world that requires some investment into one’s society may be uplifting and provide a higher uniform quality of life for mankind.
I’m assuming that poverty might someday be eliminated if the form of government changed to one where increasing the number of poor people with franchise was a necessary political base building action for the selfish form of government that is reflected in our current two party systems.
I’m assuming that we have not perfected society and that we ought to at least try.
:)
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
Lee Nellis said:
.......There are lots of sci-fi novels set in worlds where one class of people is confined to a permanent ghetto, while another makes the rules. You all are assuming that you will be on one side of the wall, not the other.
The term and concept you are looking for is "propinquity", or search for self/sameness. Basicly, if your on this board, you would be on the positive side of the proverbial fence.

Every society is dystopic. Dystopia is part of the human condition. For every scheme to instill "loyalty, conditioning, obligation, etc. all" you have a subset of the population that will find it intolerable. That is what makes our present system the best in the world, because of its self correcting function by voting. By this I do not mean it actually works well, just better than other systems (for us, others maybe not).

The Starship Troopers paradigme was great, but putting into practice would be difficult. Personally, when I hear Michealski talk about baking my leadership and allowing shifting reasons for justifying a war, I get worried. Being anti-administration right now is a sign to me that you care what happens to our democracy.

Questioning authority is a GREAT thing. If your leadership can't justify the questions, then you can rest assured they are being sneaky and anti-democratic.

This is true of ANY organization that holds power, secular or religious.
Just because it is in/on the printed page, does not make it true.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
Duke Of Dystopia said:
The term and concept you are looking for is "propinquity", or search for self/sameness. Basicly, if your on this board, you would be on the positive side of the proverbial fence.

Every society is dystopic. Dystopia is part of the human condition. For every scheme to instill "loyalty, conditioning, obligation, etc. all" you have a subset of the population that will find it intolerable. That is what makes our present system the best in the world, because of its self correcting function by voting. By this I do not mean it actually works well, just better than other systems (for us, others maybe not).

The Starship Troopers paradigme was great, but putting into practice would be difficult. Personally, when I hear Michealski talk about baking my leadership and allowing shifting reasons for justifying a war, I get worried. Being anti-administration right now is a sign to me that you care what happens to our democracy.

Questioning authority is a GREAT thing. If your leadership can't justify the questions, then you can rest assured they are being sneaky and anti-democratic.

This is true of ANY organization that holds power, secular or religious.
Just because it is in/on the printed page, does not make it true.
FLAW: Why couldn't people that have served, earned their franchise and participate in the government also question authority. John Kerry may or may not have pitched his ribbons, medals, or Yale decoder ring in a fit of near protest to fight a war he may or may not have been against.


Some people assume that because you are conservative you don't question authority. Folks I'm a conservative on many issues and I question the hell out of authority. And guess what? Some times you can even agree with authority
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
el Guapo said:
FLAW: Why couldn't people that have served, earned their franchise and participate in the government also question authority. John Kerry may or may not have pitched his ribbons, medals, or Yale decoder ring.


Some people assume that because you are conservative you don't question authority. Folks I'm a conservative on many issues and I question the hell out of authority. And guess what? Some times you can even agree with authority
I agree with your statements above completly. You don't need to have served to question authority intelligently for legitimate reasons.

Does it matter in any way shape or form if he pitched his rings. I would say, no.

Our system was built with distrust of authority in mind and as the primary requirment to maintain the system. To not be distrustful is anti democratic and anti system.

I too am conservative, but the GOP lost me when they told me that I don't need civil liberties. When they asked for a blank check and then abused the system with it. Its not that conservatives don't question authority, it is that they ARE the authority right now and they don't like having to answere hard questions. I don't question thier motives, I question thier methods.

Do you really think 2 draft dodgers should be flinging mud at Kerry for his service record? Sure, there are people in both parties that care. In fact, I think most of them do but given free reign, they will run amok. I trust McCain, I trust Kerry, Powell and many more, worts and all.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
I picked I have another idea, so let me explain.

Allright, this is going to sound far fetched and a little crazy, but it might be possible.

Create clones of people and train them to fight. Clone gets killed, who cares. Clone goes awol or gets into trouble, remove and dispose of. Clone makes it out alive and has forfilled its purpose, remove and dispose of.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
Rumpy Tunanator said:
I picked I have another idea, so let me explain.

Allright, this is going to sound far fetched and a little crazy, but it might be possible.

Create clones of people and train them to fight. Clone gets killed, who cares. Clone goes awol or gets into trouble, remove and dispose of. Clone makes it out alive and has forfilled its purpose, remove and dispose of.

The problem is, clones are humans not robots. In your terms, why not just round up anybody who is not gainfully employed and ship them off to wherever. Being unproductive, there is no need for them to ever return. 8-!
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Rumpy Tunanator said:
I picked I have another idea, so let me explain.

Allright, this is going to sound far fetched and a little crazy, but it might be possible.

Create clones of people and train them to fight. Clone gets killed, who cares. Clone goes awol or gets into trouble, remove and dispose of. Clone makes it out alive and has forfilled its purpose, remove and dispose of.
Better yet, create semi-human robots, lets call them...replicants...with limited lifespans to do ALL the dirty work-including military service. Maybe we should also have a special corps of enforcers fro the replicants who get too big for their britches and try to escape. :)

In all seriousness, this has been a good discussion. I have no fundamental problem with public service as a requirement for citizenship. I'm not sure I agree that military service is the only way to fulfill that obligation.

SEMI OFF-TOPIC: One side note, though, is that us "liberals" would question who are really the sponges and who are really being pandered to in society-the welfare moms or, imo, the welfare corporations. I know the corporations sucking on the public teat theoretically provide economic benefits, but come on....
 
Messages
1,264
Points
22
Planderella said:
So you believe that the DRAFT will take care of these lazy people with social problems? The purpose of the military is to serve and protect your country, not serve as some social service agency or a cure-all for wayward citizens.


I couldn't have said it any better. There are lot of people in the military, that have no business in the military. Some major civilian institutions have to be overhauled, so that military is not thought of 'the last resort'. My grandmother used to say, "if you feel like you can't make it life, join the Air Force". I knew she meant well, but you shouldn't tell a 13 year old something like that. Personally, I am not a good fit for any of the armed services.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
the north omaha star said:
I couldn't have said it any better. There are lot of people in the military, that have no business in the military. Some major civilian institutions have to be overhauled, so that military is not thought of 'the last resort'. My grandmother used to say, "if you feel like you can't make it life, join the Air Force". I knew she meant well, but you shouldn't tell a 13 year old something like that. Personally, I am not a good fit for any of the armed services.
But, there is a difference between service in a combat unit and other forms of public service-even non-combat military service.

I would be a horrible soldier, so I agree with you there.
 
Messages
3,690
Points
27
jresta said:
military or some sort of national service should be mandatory for 2 consecutive years of the persons choosing between the ages of 18 and 28 - medical waivers only for the disabled.
I couldn't agree more.
 
Messages
7,649
Points
29
el Guapo said:
Michele
I read Starship Troopers thinking I was getting a quick Sci-Fi story and I got a paradigm shift instead. I think he was right on the money with the service = full citizenship and franchise concept.
I think you misunderstood me. I said I am not for it but it had its merits. I have been married to a soldier for 18 1/2 years (we have been married 19 1/2 years but he joined after we married). It is incredibly hard for two people to be married an in service. And with my medical problems, if you take the view some folks on this board are taking and say "everyone serves, no exceptions except medical disability" and then add your position of "you have to serve to have citizenship", I and my oldest son could never qualify for citizenship. Yet, in a very real sense, I have served my country. The lengthy military career of my husband is a burden that has been born by the entire family -- me and the kids and even relatives in the extended family to some degree. You have previously advocated for "no women in the front lines -- it distracts the men from doing their job". So if I am barred from serving fully because I am female or I am barred from serving at all because I am medically handicapped, I am automatically a second class citizen.

My point was that while Heinlein's theories have their merits, the thing he said was "ANYONE can serve, even a blind, deaf-mute -- we will have them count the hairs on the back of a caterpillar by feel, if necessary, but NO ONE is barred from enlistment due to standards of ANY kind -- if you want to serve, you are entitled to serve and we grant you citizenshp". And NO ONE on this board is addressing my point that if you want to "take everyone" or "draft everyone", you have to deal with serious issues of inclusion.

As I understand it, Switzerland has close to 100% of its citizenship in the reserve. You can have hair down to your butt. They do not make you cut it. If you want full participation, you have change how our military is run.

Also, I have read that Switzerland has known peace and maintained its neutrality for so long due to the mountainous terrain. If this is true, then Switzerland can afford to have lax standards because the risk of going to war and the need for serious training are low. I do not think you can say the same is true for the U.S.

So, if you would like to tell me how the issue of INCLUSION for people like ME will be addressed, I am all ears. And if you would like to tell me how, under your system, I can get citizenship as the wife of a career soldier (and daughter of a man who spent 26 1/2 years in service), without this becoming some kind of loophole and problem, again, I am all ears. And if you have no suggestions for effectively addressing such issues, then .... sorry, Heinlein's theories covered inclusion. The theories I am hearing bantered about here do not, as far as I can tell.

I am no slacker nor am I irresponsible. But I do have serious medical issues. There are problems with this country but I seriously doubt that a draft will cure any of them.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Bnw

BKM said:
Better yet, create semi-human robots, lets call them...replicants...with limited lifespans to do ALL the dirty work-including military service. Maybe we should also have a special corps of enforcers fro the replicants who get too big for their britches and try to escape. :)

...
Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World."
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
485
Points
14
Rumpy Tunanator said:
Allright, this is going to sound far fetched and a little crazy, but it might be possible.

Create clones of people and train them to fight. Clone gets killed, who cares. Clone goes awol or gets into trouble, remove and dispose of. Clone makes it out alive and has forfilled its purpose, remove and dispose of.
Have you been reading Star Wars books? (The Clone Wars)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Tom R said:
Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World."
I was thinking of Blade Runner, of course :)

I actually bought a copy of BNW. Trenchant social commentary it may be (I think it is more visionary than 1984), but an enjopyable read-I'm not sure (didn't finish it yet.)
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
Hold on a bit. Why are we talking draft? We are talking draft because this administration used war as a means of diplomacy -- rather than diplomacy.

I don't favor a draft because I don't want people like the current administration to have a military force they can use unwisely. Let's keep it small and use war as a diplomatic tool of last resort, rather than as a preemptive military tool.
 

Zoning Goddess

Cyburbian
Messages
13,852
Points
39
I'm going for the very simplistic view here. I have an 11-year old son, so I vote no draft.

I remember the draft lottery on t.v. during Vietnam. No way would I wish that on anybody ever again.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
No draft.

Smaller army.

Less money spent on arms and military (reference Dwight Eisenhower).

Ramp up for national defense if there is a need but don't maintain a large standing army. There is a temptation for leaders to use a strong standing army inappropriately. A smaller defense-based army takes away that temptation
 

chukky

Cyburbian
Messages
363
Points
12
Zoning Goddess said:
I'm going for the very simplistic view here. I have an 11-year old son, so I vote no draft.

I remember the draft lottery on t.v. during Vietnam. No way would I wish that on anybody ever again.

I'll go even simpler. At eighteen, I'm a prime candidate. So No.

Catergorically No.

And even more No.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,173
Points
51
I have thought about this for quite a while. The more I look at it, more I would be in favor of a draft, but only if needed. I think that most people take the their freedoms for granted.

Realistically, I don’t think that it will ever happen again.
 

zman

Cyburbian
Messages
9,244
Points
32
What about a 2 year period (say 18-20 years old) of mandatory civil service. This could include military, Peace Corps, or a VISTA volunteer (or similar domestic rural/urban "peace corps") service. This would get a lot of my generation as well as up and coming generations away from the video game console and out to experience and help the country and the world.

Different incentives would be placed upon either of these three services depending upon need. I.E. now, we are at war, so there would be better incentives for kids to enter the military, same could be said of Katrina/Rita clean up.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,693
Points
71
zmanPLAN said:
What about a 2 year period (say 18-20 years old) of mandatory civil service. This could include military, Peace Corps, or a VISTA volunteer (or similar domestic rural/urban "peace corps") service. This would get a lot of my generation as well as up and coming generations away from the video game console and out to experience and help the country and the world.

Different incentives would be placed upon either of these three services depending upon need. I.E. now, we are at war, so there would be better incentives for kids to enter the military, same could be said of Katrina/Rita clean up.
You know, that's not a half bad idea. I recall reading accounts from folks who during the 30's worked in the Civilian Conservation Corps. They said it was a formative experience and something they remembered the rest of their lives. For about the last three decades the lumber industry has been reaping the (literal) fruits of the CCC's labors.
 

Nero

Member
Messages
246
Points
10
I say no draft. By making people go into the military is not going to fix any social ills. When I was in the Air Force we flew into all THREE military prisons. YES there are alot of very bad people in the military that end up in the prison system run by the military. There is an american prison in Germany, one in Guam and of course Fort Levenworth here in the US. One of the most notorious in the prison US Army sargent who killed young girls in Yougoslavia. Funny we don't here much about the military prisons.... oh yes there was pvt Lyndsay England who was invloved with torture.
 

The One

Cyburbian
Messages
8,289
Points
30
Ha ha ha.....

BKM said:
Better yet, create semi-human robots, lets call them...replicants...with limited lifespans to do ALL the dirty work-including military service. Maybe we should also have a special corps of enforcers fro the replicants who get too big for their britches and try to escape. :)
....
BKM, thanks for the laugh today.....very nice.....do you also dream of electric sheep and worship Mercer??
 

illinoisplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
5,335
Points
25
Hell no. The draft = communism, plain and simple.

I'm as far right as you can be, but there is no way in hell anyone should be forced to do good service. It should come out of the goodness of their hearts, and I think we have plenty of that right now. I also think they have lots of resources but could always use more and more. Only under extreme circumstances, such as a World War with multiple fronts or when a significantly large opposing army (i.e. China) must be confronted should we reinstate the draft. But right now, we are doing just fine. I loved how Kerry tried to say that if Bush was reelected, Bush would reinistate the draft. What a load of crap. I know Bush wouldn't do such a thing. It's Kerry who would've. The Democrats are famous for instituting drafts.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
illinoisplanner said:
Hell no. The draft = communism, plain and simple...

The Democrats are famous for instituting drafts.
I don't try to incite, only clarify...

I believe Abraham Lincoln was the first to establish a military draft in the US, and he was the very first Republican President. Lincoln's establishment of the draft in 1863 led to widespread riots in New York City, chiefly conducted by recent Irish immigrants who didn't want to fight a war they had nothing to do with.

Yes, Democrats (Wilson and Roosevelt) did institute drafts for World Wars I and II. But Eisenhower and a GOP Congress in the 1950s did nothing to stop military conscription, not with Korea and the Cold War going on. LBJ upped troop levels in Vietnam with the draft; Nixon lowered troop levels once in office, and it was Ford who put an end to the draft as we now know it.

In 1980, Carter instituted Selective Service registration as a means to gauge the numbers of people available for military service. But the last President to prosecute those who refused to register? Reagan, between '80 and '84.

source: military-history.com
 

illinoisplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
5,335
Points
25
pete-rock said:
I don't try to incite, only clarify...

I believe Abraham Lincoln was the first to establish a military draft in the US, and he was the very first Republican President. Lincoln's establishment of the draft in 1863 led to widespread riots in New York City, chiefly conducted by recent Irish immigrants who didn't want to fight a war they had nothing to do with.

Yes, Democrats (Wilson and Roosevelt) did institute drafts for World Wars I and II. But Eisenhower and a GOP Congress in the 1950s did nothing to stop military conscription, not with Korea and the Cold War going on. LBJ upped troop levels in Vietnam with the draft; Nixon lowered troop levels once in office, and it was Ford who put an end to the draft as we now know it.

In 1980, Carter instituted Selective Service registration as a means to gauge the numbers of people available for military service. But the last President to prosecute those who refused to register? Reagan, between '80 and '84.

source: military-history.com
Well, I think the Civil War is an obvious exception. I might have went a little far in saying that a draft = communism. I just don't think forced service (espeically mandatory service for multiple years for everyone during wartime and peacetime) is the right idea. I think people need to realize that some are ready to pursue their careers and sustain American economics and culture at home, and others are more equipped to serve in the military. And I think the choices most young Americans are currently making in that respect are right on target, and nothing needs to be changed at the moment.

I also believe that World Wars are exceptions. However, the draft during Vietnam could possibly be one the worst decisions our country ever made.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
The One said:
BKM, thanks for the laugh today.....very nice.....do you also dream of electric sheep and worship Mercer??
Well......

I DO worship Phillip K. Dick, though :)

I think people need to realize that some are ready to pursue their careers and sustain American economics and culture at home, and others are more equipped to serve in the military..
So...being, for example, a hack warmongering blogger/newspaper columnist who refuses to enlist is fine with you? "We need need need NEEEEEEED this war...but, but, but I myself and all of my social class are too important to actually fight in it."

Yeah, right.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,414
Points
34
zmanPLAN said:
What about a 2 year period (say 18-20 years old) of mandatory civil service. This could include military, Peace Corps, or a VISTA volunteer (or similar domestic rural/urban "peace corps") service. This would get a lot of my generation as well as up and coming generations away from the video game console and out to experience and help the country and the world.

Different incentives would be placed upon either of these three services depending upon need. I.E. now, we are at war, so there would be better incentives for kids to enter the military, same could be said of Katrina/Rita clean up.
Once again Zman & I are on the same page. I think I may have brought up something similar to this in one of the ancient threads sometime back. I know that not everyone is cut out to squeeze a trigger, but there are other ways to serve society. A policy like what Zman describes would not only help others, but also help our society that seems to have become so selfish and self-centered.

I definitely do not support a draft system similar to Vietnam, although a draft might make Congress/Prez think twice before embarking on military action, especially if all of the "Senators' Sons" loopholes are sealed up. I don't expect any politicians to touch this political H-bomb for quite some time though.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,443
Points
34
illinoisplanner said:
Well, I think the Civil War is an obvious exception.
I also believe that World Wars are exceptions.
So, what do these exceptions do to your original point?


illinoisplanner said:
I think people need to realize that some are ready to pursue their careers and sustain American economics and culture at home, and others are more equipped to serve in the military.
(Grabs giant pot stirring spoon)

So when we cut student aid and programs for low income folks, that leaves little option for those who "are more equipped to serve in the military." except military service. That way, the wealthy elite can "sustain American economics and culture at home"....
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
I agree, giff57. I think everyone should be required to serve in some sort of military or civil service, and I think that tuition should be very low or free at state universities.

Right now we're in a situation where the rich never have to face the responsibilities of citizenship while they send their kids to posh liberal arts schools while the working class have to work their fingers to the bone and still end up with large amounts of debt just to go to so-called "public" schools or put their lives on the line in silly conflicts just to get an education.

Meanwhile, organizations like Peace Corps have trouble getting recruits because the working class are occupied with keeping their heads above water and the rich are too selfish to do things like that.
 
Top