Should The US Reinstate The Draft or Some Other Mandatory Service?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

they sure did but then again the rich could send their kids to military schools where you get trained to hand out the orders as an officer to the poor kids who happened to be the grunts.

Nope.

You have to lead from the front, what you are discribing is only seen at the most senior level of modern armies.

You know where a VMI graduate was in WWI?

In FRONT of his troops, not hiding in a bunker.

You guys should do a little studying before you all talk about how drafts will win wars, and 'the rich' avoid them.

The truth is cowards avoid the fighting, not neccesarily the rich.

Back in the days of WWI, war was still considered a glorious adventure.

Which explains the government's unprecedented propaganda campaign to get public sentiment on their side since most of the U.S. population opposed entering WW1.

 

[Xenophon]

Xenophon, are you trying to tell me that throughout the history of warfare that the wealthy have not used their power and influence to secure positions in war that are either desirable or safe?

I was rather clear on this, coawrads do that, not 'the rich' as some of you seem to believe.

The most likely candidate to get his head shot off is a military school graduate.

 

[Newby]

Since most of the Congressmen would then be eligible for the draft? Yeah, you can bet on it.

And, in response to the Cheney, Limbaugh, etc post, removing the upper age limit would take care of that too.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's "Anal blisters" have cleared up by now.

I'll take that bet.

BTW, I find it interesting that so many of you feel THE STATE has the right to take years of your lives, and that you believe it will avoid wars.

Not big on that whole 'american' concept, are you guys.

And a lot of you need some serious history lessons.

'The rich' USED to ALWAYS send their kids to war, it was a common prcatise right up till the end of WWI, where conscripted armies killed off huge portions of the adult populations.

If any of you believe 'drafts' will prevent wars you are not dealing with full decks.

Since "the State" is starting the wars in the first place, mainly due to the support of older voters, then those older voters should have to have a stake in the fight.

In the last war, there were a whole bunch of people, mostly older voters, who felt that they wanted to fight a war, but they didn't want to pay for it through higher taxes.

Hell, we're still fighting those two wars, and people on the right are STILL complaining about their taxes!

And isn't it odd how the left is completely silent about the fact that we're still fighting those wars? They didn't give a damn about the wars, they only cared about using whatever tool they could get their hands on to bash their enemy Bush as much as possible. If they had truly cared about the so-called injustice of the war, they'd still be out there protesting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope.

You have to lead from the front, what you are discribing is only seen at the most senior level of modern armies.

You know where a VMI graduate was in WWI?

In FRONT of his troops, not hiding in a bunker.

You guys should do a little studying before you all talk about how drafts will win wars, and 'the rich' avoid them.

The truth is cowards avoid the fighting, not neccesarily the rich.

Back in the days of WWI, war was still considered a glorious adventure.

I'm trying to get you and the others to understand there are no 'good' or 'just' wars, that is just something said to make people go and fight.

You keep saying 'war of choice' but the fact is they are ALL wars of choice.

As long as you preserve the fiction of 'the good war' you allow some moron to use that for some fool's errand such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

 

[Vast LWC]

Which is why the draft age limit would need to be raised to at least 65.

This is an excellent example of how those on the left use people and groups of people to manipulate the masses into doing what they want. When we wanted to revamp social security, they sure made a huge deal out of how all of the poor senior citizens were going to be screwed out of their SS checks. Now, in order to try to enforce some bizarre sense of 'peace on earth' you're going to send them off to war? Amazing. [/QUOTE]

Since the loudest and largest group supporting the Iraq war was above the current draft age, and most of them have never fought in a war? Yes, it most certainly applies.

Especially since the political leaders themselves had mostly never fought in a war either.

Older folks are quite happy to send young soldiers off to war, but GOD FORBID they should be asked to do anything to help in the effort. Including paying for it with tax increases.

No, they're more than happy to pass the bill, as well as the responsibility of fighting, off to younger generations.

 

[Jay Canuck]

and the poor what choice do they have?....it would seem to me they get to die as cannon fodder while the wealthy can make the decision to play the hero or play it safe.

 

[Xenophon]

Since "the State" is starting the wars in the first place, mainly due to the support of older voters, then those older voters should have to have a stake in the fight.

In the last war, there were a whole bunch of people, mostly older voters, who felt that they wanted to fight a war, but they didn't want to pay for it through higher taxes.

Hell, we're still fighting those two wars, and people on the right are STILL complaining about their taxes!

Really?

It was the government, the GoP and the Democrats that caused the Iraq and Afghan wars, not the voters.

I don't recall a speacil public vote for war, when was that held exactly?

 

[Xenophon]

Back in the days of WWI, war was still considered a glorious adventure.

I'm trying to get you and the others to understand there are no 'good' or 'just' wars, that is just something said to make people go and fight.

You keep saying 'war of choice' but the fact is they are ALL wars of choice.

As long as you preserve the fiction of 'the good war' you allow some moron to use that for some fool's errand such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Polish fighters, French fighters and England fought back against Nazi Germany, what were their choices?

There are no good wars depending on the definition of the term good. There is always choice leading up to war, but sometimes the choices are very grim...as in occupation or rape of resources or relocation of a populace.

get real. your morality is quite boring when it is only showing it's black and white side.

Normally I don't answer you because you are an idiot, but in this case I will make an exception.

Tell us why Germany satrted WWII.

What was the EXACT reason, and if you say 'Hitler wanted to take over the world' I will laugh at you for a monic answer.

 

[Vast LWC]

And isn't it odd how the left is completely silent about the fact that we're still fighting those wars? They didn't give a damn about the wars, they only cared about using whatever tool they could get their hands on to bash their enemy Bush as much as possible. If they had truly cared about the so-called injustice of the war, they'd still be out there protesting.

The Right started the wars, now the left is trying to clean them up.

And now you're trying to blame the left for finishing the job that you people screwed up so royally?

And most of the left didn't complain about Afghanistan, most of the left only complained about Iraq, which if you haven't noticed, we are slowly withdrawing from.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Xenophon, are you trying to tell me that throughout the history of warfare that the wealthy have not used their power and influence to secure positions in war that are either desirable or safe?

I was rather clear on this, coawrads do that, not 'the rich' as some of you seem to believe.

The most likely candidate to get his head shot off is a military school graduate.

way to dodge the question!

 

[Newby]

Which is why the draft age limit would need to be raised to at least 65.

This is an excellent example of how those on the left use people and groups of people to manipulate the masses into doing what they want. When we wanted to revamp social security, they sure made a huge deal out of how all of the poor senior citizens were going to be screwed out of their SS checks. Now, in order to try to enforce some bizarre sense of 'peace on earth' you're going to send them off to war? Amazing.

Since the loudest and largest group supporting the Iraq war was above the current draft age, and most of them have never fought in a war? Yes, it most certainly applies.

Especially since the political leaders themselves had mostly never fought in a war either.

Older folks are quite happy to send young soldiers off to war, but GOD FORBID they should be asked to do anything to help in the effort. Including paying for it with tax increases.

No, they're more than happy to pass the bill, as well as the responsibility of fighting, off to younger generations.

The only 'voice' that counted was the Congressional voice that voted to go to war.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is why the draft age limit would need to be raised to at least 65.

This is an excellent example of how those on the left use people and groups of people to manipulate the masses into doing what they want. When we wanted to revamp social security, they sure made a huge deal out of how all of the poor senior citizens were going to be screwed out of their SS checks. Now, in order to try to enforce some bizarre sense of 'peace on earth' you're going to send them off to war? Amazing.

Since the loudest and largest group supporting the Iraq war was above the current draft age, and most of them have never fought in a war? Yes, it most certainly applies.

Especially since the political leaders themselves had mostly never fought in a war either.

Older folks are quite happy to send young soldiers off to war, but GOD FORBID they should be asked to do anything to help in the effort. Including paying for it with tax increases.

No, they're more than happy to pass the bill, as well as the responsibility of fighting, off to younger generations.[/QUOTE]

wow!


how did you uncover the leftism of the other poster? do you have a magic wand or something?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and the poor what choice do they have?....it would seem to me they get to die as cannon fodder while the wealthy can make the decision to play the hero or play it safe.

Rawanda, the poor made out quite well in a war over there. Uganda too. Not all warmongers are wealthy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since most of the Congressmen would then be eligible for the draft? Yeah, you can bet on it.

And, in response to the Cheney, Limbaugh, etc post, removing the upper age limit would take care of that too.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's "Anal blisters" have cleared up by now.

I'll take that bet.

BTW, I find it interesting that so many of you feel THE STATE has the right to take years of your lives, and that you believe it will avoid wars.

Not big on that whole 'american' concept, are you guys.

And a lot of you need some serious history lessons.

'The rich' USED to ALWAYS send their kids to war, it was a common prcatise right up till the end of WWI, where conscripted armies killed off huge portions of the adult populations.

If any of you believe 'drafts' will prevent wars you are not dealing with full decks.

A draft would most definitely put an end to wars of choice.

WWII HAD to be fought. The others didn't including the latest fiascos we've gotten ourselves into.

And yet Korea the Cuban missile crisis and Vietnam all were handled with a DRAFT. The draft ended in what? 73? You people ever take history lessons?

Further you dumb asses a Congressman can not ne drafted, as he is already serving in the Government. What next gonna suggest the president should be drafted?

Our military is an all voluntary force and has not had much problems with recruitment for the last 8 years of the so called wars of choice. All a draft would do is destroy our stellar military and cause MORE deaths in the wars we fought on both sides.

 

[Vast LWC]

Since "the State" is starting the wars in the first place, mainly due to the support of older voters, then those older voters should have to have a stake in the fight.

In the last war, there were a whole bunch of people, mostly older voters, who felt that they wanted to fight a war, but they didn't want to pay for it through higher taxes.

Hell, we're still fighting those two wars, and people on the right are STILL complaining about their taxes!

Really?

It was the government, the GoP and the Democrats that caused the Iraq and Afghan wars, not the voters.

I don't recall a speacil public vote for war, when was that held exactly?

The government is voted in by the voters. The majority of the voters who put the GoP regime in place were older voters.

The makeup of our government is the responsibility of the people who voted for them.

And in this case, the people who voted them BACK INTO OFFICE again in 2004.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

'The rich' USED to ALWAYS send their kids to war, it was a common prcatise right up till the end of WWI, where conscripted armies killed off huge portions of the adult populations.




they sure did but then again the rich could send their kids to military schools where you get trained to hand out the orders as an officer to the poor kids who happened to be the grunts.

You may want to do a little research on the life expectancy of Company Grade officers in the last 4 wars before these supposed wars of choice. You are beyond stupid.

 

[Newby]

And isn't it odd how the left is completely silent about the fact that we're still fighting those wars? They didn't give a damn about the wars, they only cared about using whatever tool they could get their hands on to bash their enemy Bush as much as possible. If they had truly cared about the so-called injustice of the war, they'd still be out there protesting.

The Right started the wars, now the left is trying to clean them up.

And now you're trying to blame the left for finishing the job that you people screwed up so royally?

And most of the left didn't complain about Afghanistan, most of the left only complained about Iraq, which if you haven't noticed, we are slowly withdrawing from.

I seem to remember your Democratic representatives voting to go to war, I also remember them voting to approve funding for the war. You're not cleaning a damn thing up, they're still both going on. Why aren't you out there critisizing Obama and offering your protests? And while they're still going on, he's domestically making a mess that's not going to be able to be cleaned up for decades by anyone.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is an excellent example of how those on the left use people and groups of people to manipulate the masses into doing what they want. When we wanted to revamp social security, they sure made a huge deal out of how all of the poor senior citizens were going to be screwed out of their SS checks. Now, in order to try to enforce some bizarre sense of 'peace on earth' you're going to send them off to war? Amazing.

Since the loudest and largest group supporting the Iraq war was above the current draft age, and most of them have never fought in a war? Yes, it most certainly applies.

Especially since the political leaders themselves had mostly never fought in a war either.

Older folks are quite happy to send young soldiers off to war, but GOD FORBID they should be asked to do anything to help in the effort. Including paying for it with tax increases.

No, they're more than happy to pass the bill, as well as the responsibility of fighting, off to younger generations.

The only 'voice' that counted was the Congressional voice that voted to go to war.

Oh, so the "Decider" had nothing to do with it then, hmmm???

And who voted for the Republican President, the Republican House, and the barely Democratic Senate at the time?

 

[Xenophon]

Xenophon, are you trying to tell me that throughout the history of warfare that the wealthy have not used their power and influence to secure positions in war that are either desirable or safe?

I was rather clear on this, cowards do that, not 'the rich' as some of you seem to believe.

The most likely candidate to get his head shot off is a military school graduate.

way to dodge the question!

Your question was answered clearly, there was no 'dodge.'

You asked if 'the rich' did something, and the answer is no, the cowards did so, as 'the rich' sent their kids happily off to wars quite often.

 

[Jay Canuck]

and the poor what choice do they have?....it would seem to me they get to die as cannon fodder while the wealthy can make the decision to play the hero or play it safe.

Rawanda, the poor made out quite well in a war over there. Uganda too. Not all warmongers are wealthy.

the poor made out well over there? it was a genocide you fuckstain.....and who benifted from it?