So much for the cons bein for the draft..

Uncle Leo

sponger wrote:

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."

Ummmm Pita.

jeffbr

Uncle Leo wrote:

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

Your morals allow this level of government force against its own citizenry? Conscription is a most evil abuse of government power, and you're endorsing this totalitarian practice? Conscription is slavery.

Uncle Leo

jeffbr wrote:

Your morals allow this level of government force against its own citizenry? Conscription is a most evil abuse of government power, and you're endorsing this totalitarian practice? Conscription is slavery.

How convenient that the non-totaliatiarn practice enables members of the volunteer Army to serve three tours while the rest of us get to support the war free of any fears.

sponger

Exactly. Three tours is ridiculous.

Uncle Leo

jeffbr wrote:

Your morals allow this level of government force against its own citizenry? Conscription is a most evil abuse of government power, and you're endorsing this totalitarian practice? Conscription is slavery.

Is it slavery when a "volunteer" wants out and cannot get out? Once someone enists, they get to be kicked around for life and sent all over the place regardless of the lack of thought behind it. And if they decide that they no longer participate--"you signed the dotted line on your 18th birthday, your ass is ours until it gets blown off or until you're too old for us."

Seems like a method of conscription to me.

sapperskunk

I don't get it. You dems have had your chances (if you were old enough) to step up and involve yourself in "just" wars. How bout the gulf war, getting food to starving people in Somalia, how about stopping an ethnic cleansing in the balkans, how about Afghanistan prior to the Iraq war?

Just admit it, you didn't join because your letting the people who give a shit, or who don't have the opportunities that you do, to do your part. It's your standard free-rider dilemma.

You'd like to "think that you would" but you probably wouldn't.

jeffbr

Uncle Leo wrote:

How convenient that the non-totaliatiarn practice enables members of the volunteer Army to serve three tours while the rest of us get to support the war free of any fears.

And your morals are no more noble than these. If the volunteers agreed to provisions which allow them to be redeployed multiple times, then that sucks for them. If they didn't agree to it, then congress or the courts should do something about that and free them from their situations.

But to endorse conscription is infinitely more totalitarian no matter how you might try to justify it to yourself.

sapperskunk

sponger wrote:

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.

That's weird, I was never a traffic cop or a prison guard. I had my own reconnaissance team.

jeffbr

Uncle Leo wrote:

Is it slavery when a "volunteer" wants out and cannot get out? Once someone enists, they get to be kicked around for life and sent all over the place regardless of the lack of thought behind it. And if they decide that they no longer participate--"you signed the dotted line on your 18th birthday, your ass is ours until it gets blown off or until you're too old for us."

Seems like a method of conscription to me.

If that clause existed at the time they signed the dotted line, then too fucking bad for them. That is completely different than grabbing people from their lives, their jobs their schools, their homes and throwing uniforms on them and forcing them to fight.

And your quotes around volunteer are interesting. You either don't believe they volunteered or believe that they were too dumb to know what they were volunteering for. If they didn't volunteer, then I am 100% opposed to them being there.

sponger

The question is whether or not a draft will make any sort of difference in Iraq. From what US commanders there have been saying, there aren't enough troops in Iraq as of the present moment. Iraq needs to be turned into a police state until the government there can take over. Apparently, that's not possible with the troop levels that exist with our volunteer army.

So, the options are either to institute a draft or get out. If we get out now and leave the Iraqi government at the mercy of Syrian and Iranian insurgency activities, Iraq could become another Yemen or Afghanistan. In which case, it would be a matter of security for other nations including the US.

sapperskunk

jeffbr wrote:

If that clause existed at the time they signed the dotted line, then too fucking bad for them. That is completely different than grabbing people from their lives, their jobs their schools, their homes and throwing uniforms on them and forcing them to fight.

Exactly.

Uncle Leo

sapperskunk wrote:

I don't get it. You dems have had your chances (if you were old enough) to step up and involve yourself in "just" wars. How bout the gulf war, getting food to starving people in Somalia, how about stopping an ethnic cleansing in the balkans, how about Afghanistan prior to the Iraq war?

Just admit it, you didn't join because your letting the people who give a shit, or who don't have the opportunities that you do, to do your part. It's your standard free-rider dilemma.

You'd like to "think that you would" but you probably wouldn't.

You're right. Enlisting never even occured to me. I did not believe in the Gulf war and was to young to serve anyway at the time. As for the other stuff. I ranged from support, to being on the fence to being against things, depending on the action. And I did not enlist. I did not want my life interrupted (college binge drinking, the whole nine yards). And it was a luxury I had.

Perhaps my privalaged upper-middle class ass can be exhibit A as to why there ought to be a draft. Or perhaps there does not need to be a draft for most of the above. I don't know.

But the bottom line is that you are right. I was never going to enlist. And my "liberal guilt" gets at me at times, but I still never step up to the plate.

But if we had a draft, perhaps I'd have had to do something (although these activities would never have led to a draft)? Who knows.

Anyway, you got me. In some circumstances I may volunteer--legitimate national defense, though at that point, most able bodied males are probably being drafted anyway. But not for the above. My excuse: The numbers are sufficiant, I have asthma so they would not send me. But I admit it. The bottom line is that you are right. I am letting those that A) have more interest in the military and joined because they did not have my advantages do the good deeds in those places around the globe.

By the way, you use the term "Dems". I am not a "Dem." And while I am a "lib", you cannot honestly believe that it is just the Dems or the libs that are guilty of letting the volunteers do this while free riding. This spans the entire political spectrum and all parties.

Uncle Leo

I am going to admit something (but libs never admit anything...)

I am not admiting that I am wrong, but I am admitting that this thread has turned the idea of a draft rule from a slam dunk for me into something that has me thinking.

1. Is conscription slavery? I'll have to give that some thought. Then again are taxes slavery? How about requireing a fishing licence? I always hear that freedom is not free, so should those of us that do not sign up have to "pay" for our freedom? All of the US males over 18 here should have signed up for the draft. Is this contributing to our potential slavery? Should there EVER be a draft? What if this war goes on and on and the volunteer rate plummets (a possibility) and we run out of people? Something for us all to think about. Jeffbr, perhaps this is something you should think about as well...what if we ever NEED a draft? Is that different than what I have been talking about in terms of totalatrianism.

2. Why do I put quotes around "voluneer." They did volunteer. And I don't think they did it out of stupidity (relative to being 18). I guess I use it because I don't think their volunteering means we should be cavalier with how they are used.

3. If we have enough soldiers (though I do question that now), is there a reason for a draft? Or do those that volunteered have it covered? Who am I to suggest "why" they are there? Though perhaps some of my oponents should think about whether it is ok (regardless of what dotted line they signed up on) to have 2 and 3 tours for each of them. Legal, yes, but moral?

Edit: And perhaps some of you can consider the idea that there is value to all of us having to think about our own/our kids' lives possibly being on the line when deciding on whether to support a war...

As Kat says, we can all learn something. I appreciate all the comments (except for those that marginalized the left, dems, libs, etc.). You gave me something to think about. I'd like to think that I did the same.

Good night.

know1

I'm confused.

Why do we need a draft if the Democrats plan is to get out of Iraq? The only reason I would see that they would need a draft would be if they plan to send MORE troops there.

Uncle Leo

jeffbr wrote:

But to endorse conscription is infinitely more totalitarian no matter how you might try to justify it to yourself.

If you choose to use this logic fine. But it only really makes sense if it is all or none. So I have to assume that when you registered for selective service that you were very appauled to do so. I also have to assume that there is NEVER a situation in which you feel a draft would be OK. Because if you say that there is even one single exception (i.e. "the draft was OK during WWII because we needed everyone") then your point is severely weakened. All or none.

ThumbingMyWay32

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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

lol Actually it's on my website. That's about it...

miller8966

know1 wrote:

I'm confused.

Why do we need a draft if the Democrats plan is to get out of Iraq? The only reason I would see that they would need a draft would be if they plan to send MORE troops there.

I think you hit it right on..the dems have no idea what their doing. Charlie Rangel is a complete moron.

jeffbr

Uncle Leo wrote:

If you choose to use this logic fine. But it only really makes sense if it is all or none. So I have to assume that when you registered for selective service that you were very appauled to do so. I also have to assume that there is NEVER a situation in which you feel a draft would be OK. Because if you say that there is even one single exception (i.e. "the draft was OK during WWII because we needed everyone") then your point is severely weakened. All or none.

I was appalled when I registered with selective service. I was absolutely coerced into doing so. There is NEVER a situation where a draft would be OK.

Scratchin a Letter

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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

If a war were necessary, and i mean necessary in order for justice to take effect, necessary for the world to move forward, necessary for humankind to coexist... if it were legal, legitimate, without hidden agenda, without profiteering, well planned and the absolute last resort in the event of resolution, sanction and diplomacy failure, I would support it.

That was World War One and World War Two. That is/was NOT Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam or The Falklands.

That's being honest.

soulsinging

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? 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.

i know a few people who have been over there and all of them said it's incredibly fucked up and they don't know that were doing a damn bit of good for those people. my old college roomate enlisted in the marines. when i told him id be running for office post-law school, he said that as long as i wasn't going ship him off to fight wars we dont need to like the current president (his words... a die hard conservative), i'd have his vote. these are people on the ground. iraq is a failure and was a waste of time and money. i dont know how you can continue to deny that.