So much for the cons bein for the draft..

Vedderlution_Baby

jlew24asu wrote:

well I would hope not. rush is just some guy with an opinon. he doesnt vote on laws or help draft them. who gives a fuck what the guy has to say. he's not an elected offical. I think you knew that right?

Yes I know the difference.


I should have said I dont judge all cons off of bush.

sponger

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Great point considering the fact that not one soldier re-enlisted in Vietnam.

If by "re-enlisting" you mean voluntarily staying beyond their first tours, then I don't consider that to be an accurate statement.

Uncle Leo

I'm totally on board with this. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought the GOP wanted a draft--they rely on the votes of the upper-middle class to a large extent, many of whom do not have to worry aobut their kids...

If everyone was faced with the possibility of having themselves or their kids have to go to war, people would really have to sit down and decide if they thought it was worth it. No collge deferments, no buying your way out (OK, we all know that the richest and most connected would buy their way out somehow, but not the faceless middle and upper-middle class).

Uncle Leo

icarus wrote:

the draft didnt stop us from going into vietnam

I don't know the history as well as I ought to, but I doubt the draft was in effect when we went into Vietnam. We thought it would be much swifter than it was* and the draft was installed when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

* sound familiar?

ThumbingMyWay32

Uncle Leo wrote:

I don't know the history as well as I ought to, but I doubt the draft was in effect when we went into Vietnam. We thought it would be much swifter than it was* and the draft was installed when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

* sound familiar?

Why is the general perception, on this board, that an all volunteer army is one that is merely confused and enslaved by it's government? It's almost as if we have an entire army that actually didn't want to be in the army for fear that they may actually be in the army....... That would of course require doing army things...... And we can't have that. Yet if we force service on the general population victories will be won simply by putting boots on the ground. Granted there is actually a war that you guys believe should ever be fought. Which is what I think this is really all about. There is no war worthy of fighting which makes the draft simply a political talking point for Democrats. If rich kids are scared to serve and poor kids are being forced to serve, what's the point in having an army? Rich kids are scared and poor kids are forced. I'm only guessing liberals are applying the double-negative here rule which would explain why they believe most of the things they do.

This draft talk is just phony babbling.

sponger

Uncle Leo wrote:

when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

In that case, you'd have to make every war require x percent of draftees. Otherwise, the politicians will always be initiating wars that do not initially require draftees. Manpower originally was not an issue in Iraq. I don't think anyone foresaw the insurgency problem becoming such an impediment.

Uncle Leo

sponger wrote:

In that case, you'd have to make every war require x percent of draftees.

Yes. That's what I am saying.

sponger

Uncle Leo wrote:

Yes. That's what I am saying.

What about wars like Panama and Afghanistan? You would then propose making sure that a certain number of draftees are present during those operations?

ThumbingMyWay32

And please don't sit there and try to convince me that YOU would be willing to drop what you're doing and fight a war that YOU believe in.

I know this is a fashionable approach for liberals to take when "discussing" the Iraq war.

But, let's all be honest. No liberal here will ever agree with any war being fought in the present tense.

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

And please don't sit there and try to convince me that YOU would be willing to drop what you're doing and fight a war that YOU believe in.

I know this is a fashionable approach for liberals to take when "discussing" the Iraq war.

But, let's all be honest. No liberal here will ever agree with any war being fought in the present tense.

I would.

ThumbingMyWay32

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I would.

Ok. One.

Uncle Leo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Why is the general perception, on this board, that an all volunteer army is one that is merely confused and enslaved by it's government?

The idea that a draft should come for wars does not say, or even imply this. Is there a class component to warfare? Of course. Always has been in most every culture. Right now we have a volunteer military and those that don't volunteer (myself included) have nothing to worry about. If EVERYONE had to think about it, suddenly maybe whether or not to support a war would be based on more than wanting to be patriotic (which is so easilly confused with nationalistic).

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's almost as if we have an entire army that actually didn't want to be in the army for fear that they may actually be in the army....... That would of course require doing army things...... And we can't have that. Yet if we force service on the general population victories will be won simply by putting boots on the ground.

Sometimes it's almost as if we stress the word "volunteer" to the point that it means we can be cavalier with how we use them. Having a draft would not mean that he would "win" any easier than we do now. It would just serve to (see the above arguments made by myself and some others).

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Granted there is actually a war that you guys believe should ever be fought. Which is what I think this is really all about. There is no war worthy of fighting which makes the draft simply a political talking point for Democrats. If rich kids are scared to serve and poor kids are being forced to serve, what's the point in having an army? Rich kids are scared and poor kids are forced. I'm only guessing liberals are applying the double-negative here rule which would explain why they believe most of the things they do.

First of all I am blown away* to see this turned into something about how all liberal thought is flawed. To suggest that "we" do not believe any war should ever be fought is analgous to suggesting that "you" think war is the answer to everything. Just because poor kids are not "forced" does not (or should not) mean we should get to use them cavalierly.

Do some of the people that argue for the draft use it for political reasons because they know there will never be a draft? Probably. I am just stating my belief, which is that there should be one at the outset of all wars.



* Not true. I am not blown away.

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Ok. One.

Hey man, it's better than nothing! By the way, you still listening to fucking buckcherry?

sponger

I was seriously considering signing up for Afghanistan, but I don't think they have a troop shortage there. Even if they do end up having a troop shortage there, I still would not sign up if there was a chance of being shipped to Iraq, where troops are turned into traffic cops and prison guards.

Uncle Leo

sponger wrote:

What about wars like Panama and Afghanistan? You would then propose making sure that a certain number of draftees are present during those operations?

It gets a little murkey there. Obviously you can't instantaneously have draftees at every event the military gets involved in. So when is it a war?

I have not figured out the logistics, just the morals.

sponger

Uncle Leo wrote:

I have not figured out the logistics, just the morals.

Yeah, logistics can be a real PITA sometimes.

Uncle Leo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

And please don't sit there and try to convince me that YOU would be willing to drop what you're doing and fight a war that YOU believe in.

This is putting "us" on the spot. And fairly so. Given all the pro-war people that are currently not serving, I assume I am not going to lose any points regardless of my response.

Anyway, I'd like to think that I would, but it's easy to say in this totally hypothetical scenario. If it was a slam dunk to me that we should be in, then I believe I would. If I was on the fence, I may not. Then if my number gets called, I'd live with it.

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I know this is a fashionable approach for liberals to take when "discussing" the Iraq war.

But, let's all be honest. No liberal here will ever agree with any war being fought in the present tense.

Still not suprised about the liberal bashing.

I'll be honest. There should never be any war. At least one party (if not both/all) is always wrong.

That does not necessarilly mean that the US is the party in the wrong each and every time. Just because I do not support what we are doing in Iraq now, does not mean that I would not agree with a legitimate "national defense."

Uncle Leo

sponger wrote:

Yeah, logistics can be a real PITA sometimes.

I am sure this is obvious, but PITA?

EDIT: Nevermind got it...

Vedderlution_Baby

Uncle Leo wrote:

I am sure this is obvious, but PITA?

EDIT: Nevermind got it...

Was going to ask the same thing then it just hit me like a brick

sponger

Sorry, I used to frequent a mobile audio forum where that acronym was used all the time. "The doors on x vehicle are a real PITA for speaker installs." "Getting the right amount of bass from that sub is a real PITA."