What does everyone think about a possible U.S. conscription reinstatement? There has been some talk, now that there will be a large Democratic presence in our government, that next year such a proposal to reinstate a "draft" actually has some merit.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Military Draft?
- Thread starter JmasterJ
- Start date
Goddamn Charlie Rangel. His posistion is that if we reinstate the draft we'll be more hesitant to use our troops.
1st - Rangel is actually Susan Estridge in drag.
2nd - The Army doesn't want draftees. They want motivated volunteers
3rd - It'll never happen. Even Nancy Lugosi/Pelosi & crew aren't that politically suicidal.
1st - Rangel is actually Susan Estridge in drag.
2nd - The Army doesn't want draftees. They want motivated volunteers
3rd - It'll never happen. Even Nancy Lugosi/Pelosi & crew aren't that politically suicidal.
Yep, saw this article that Rangel is trying to bring back an active draft.
Guess this means either a) our all-volunteer troops are too expensive to maintain as a fighting force, or b) we need the draft to 'smarten up' our forces, since Kerry says only the uneducated and unemployable are enlisting nowdays. I wonder if this is the official Democrat position?
Guess this means either a) our all-volunteer troops are too expensive to maintain as a fighting force, or b) we need the draft to 'smarten up' our forces, since Kerry says only the uneducated and unemployable are enlisting nowdays. I wonder if this is the official Democrat position?
J
JellyFish
He's a pretentious, posturing a**h***.
A draft army would suck, I don't think it would have the professionalism and skill sets that our volunteer military has. Flooding the military with people that don't want to be there is one way to hamstring it and turn it into a piece of crap.
A draft army would suck, I don't think it would have the professionalism and skill sets that our volunteer military has. Flooding the military with people that don't want to be there is one way to hamstring it and turn it into a piece of crap.
My opinion is that a draft really only works when you have a large war either imminent or happening that people recognize must be fought. A peacetime draft really serves no useful purpose for reasons others have noted.
I agree but I'm curious to know why the "donkey party" wants to pull troops out of the war but on the same side of the coin, they want to strengthen troop population. If you look back 60 or so years of U.S. history, Past wars(pre-Iraq) U.S. casualties were ~60000(Vietnam), ~55000 (Korean), now look at ~3000(Iraq). With ~1500000 active military personel today, an another ~1000000 in reservist, etc. why do they want to draft?
J
JellyFish
They don't know what they want to do or what to do. They ran against Bush on Iraq cause they knew they could scare the public. Now they are in power and are utterly clueless about what to do.
Yeah...they got what they asked for, now they don't know what to do with it. They really are rocket scientists.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
J
Jose
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Waiting to hear that: "Things are worse than we thought in Iraq." from the Dems as they go in for the kill and begin posturing for the 2008 Presidential elections...
1) Cost. By the end of the draft era, the lowest (and most populated) ranks were paid substantially less than the "career" ranks. This is a repackaging of the "two tier" pay system that unions have been fighting for decades
2) Equality. The assumption is the govt should force the children of wealthier families to shoulder their "fair share" of risk assumed in military duty.
3) Quality. The Dems believe the draft will grab a greater percentage of the higher-intellect/higher educated body of candidates that are currently not signing up for the all-volunteer force. This ties in with Kerry's recent comments.
I've served in the All-volunteer force since 1973. I know the quality of people I served with throughout the last three decades. From my experience, items 1), 2) and 3) are just so much Donkey-shit.
But there is one potential benefit for the Navy: recruiting
Too funny!
I don't think all the draftees would be flunkies (as previous wars have
shown... drafted americans often rose to the task when called upon, with
bravery, valor, and patriotism) but generally I agree with you. The problem
with conscripted armies is there is always a certain percentage of individuals
in them who doesn't want to or is really incapable of fighting. Some of it
isnt about warrior ability, either... its about mindset and desire to do their
best. If we get even 5% of the active duty population that doesn't -want-
to be there, that could seriously compromise us as a fighting force. The
volunteer system works well enough, IMO. The only time conscripted
armies pan out at all is when you're dealing with a "huge problem" ala WWII
and the like where you had this big problem and only one way to solve it.
Additionally, patriotism and the like was a lot more resilient across our
population back then than it is now. If you asked 100 men if they would die
for their country in 1940s maybe 2 out of 100 would say "no". Nowadays
its probably more like 30 or 40 out of 100. Of course, the threats back
then were a lot more dramatic, and monolithic too. Nazi Germany, the
Japanese, and even communism were "real" threats... they were big and
omnipresent enough that everyone understood the danger. In modern times
far left liberalism and statism is a far bigger threat to the US than even
islamofascism is.... terrorists can be shot and imprisoned as needed... we
can't throw the statist authoritarian socialists in jail because they're using
our own system methodically to destroy this country...... they figured out
how to slowly destroy the country while staying within the law. Not even
the islamofacists are -that- good! The problem is the media and even the
government completely ignores this problem. Thus, I think the douchebags
with the deval patrick stickers on their car that think he's a great guy, well,
they're a bigger threat than islamofascism is. And even if you DO think
that islamofacism is a big deal, remember, it's the nanny state socialists that
will enable the islamofascists to win.
Further, a draft would not stop a dumb president or congress from
committing troops when it isn't warranted. IMO, any politco who is separated
far enough from the harsh realities of war could be caught doing
that, draft or no draft. If the powers that be just consider our
armed forces as a "toolbox" that they can use to deal with international
issues, then of course abuse is going to happen. FWIW, I'm not opposed
to the use of military force, or even erasing a country... IF it's really
needed. It just seems like sometimes politicians are too ignorant about the
costs of war.
-Mike
Mike, I really enjoy your posts and your intelligent reasoning. I agree with most of what you say, but not this particular posting.
'more dramatic' ?!?!?! What do you need to see that will be more dramatic than 9/11?
We are in a time where our danger from 'real' threats is higher than it's ever been. The Germans and Japanese posed only a very small threat to our country's shores compared to what we face now. We have been attacked in the heart of our own land, and not just an island we owned in the Pacific. Each one of us is in more immediate daily danger from these modern Islamic nutjobs than our parents/grandparents were from the Germans or Japs.
Back then we had the draft to keep the enemy at bay. We need the draft right NOW to do the same thing. We need to pick the best of the draftees to augment our intelligence agencies to work gathering intelligence and work black ops. There are now, and aways have been, a great number of very capable, qualified people who wouldn't volunteer to do that but would do it very well if 'asked'.
We need more people to protect our borders as well as be able to go into harm's way wherever they are needed.
You didn't say it but to those who say we wouldn't get good enough people to do the job, HAWG WASH !
I volunteered in '67 because I was going to be drafted, as was everyone I knew. Volunteering gave you duty options draftees didn't get. I served with as fine a group of people as you could ever meet, both enlistees and draftees. 95% of my basic training company were draftees, all great guys, every one.
Check out the list of Medal of Honor winners and see how many were drafted over the years. Check out how many silver and bronze stars and distinguished service medals have been awarded to draftees.
Of course, you'll always get a bad apple or two, we always have. But the benefit of a draft will far outweigh the few problems that will crop up. When draftees and enlistees are in the 'trenches', side by side, how they got there makes no difference.
That's the BIGGEST problem. The gov't, particulary the DEMS, keeps minimizing the threat to our existence, and way too many of John Q Public is drinking the kool-aid. If and when the people really know how big the immediate danger is, you'll see the Dems screaming, "Why is the military so small? We need to do something NOW".
Then it's too late. The 'more dramatic' will have happened.
I think you'll find the majority of us older, former military will agree that a draft is a good thing. Today's military will probably not agree, but that's because they never served with any draftees and have no frame of reference.
Nor do the civilians who keep saying that a draft is no good, for whatever reason.
We need a draft and the country will be better for it.
Last edited:
M1911
Moderator
It won't happen. First off, Rangel was just posturing. He doesn't want a draft and neither do any of the Dems. He was just trying to use the idea of a draft to scare the soccer mommies into voting for Democrats.
Secondly, even if the Dems wanted it, they don't have the votes. They've got the slimmest of majorities in the Senate, but that's not enough. In the Senate you need 60 votes to end debate on a bill (a vote of cloture). Without the 60 votes to end debate, you'll never get an actual up or down vote on the bill itself.
As to why people are talking about it, the reality is that our ground forces are woefully understrength. We've got about 500,000 in Army and another 150,000 in the Marines. The result is that we are greatly strained to keep just 150,000 in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan.
Congress is talking about increasing the army by 10,000 or 20,000. They are an order of magnitude off. They should be talking at least another couple hundred thousand men (personally, I think the Army should be doubled in size). In addition, the next person who talks about "Base Closure and Realignment" should be sent to a cage in Gitmo -- one look at history shows that we're likely to be in another very large war where we'll need those bases.
If we had put 500,000 soldiers in Iraq at the get-go, we might have had enough of a presence to bring stability. We didn't simply because we can't -- we don't have enough soldiers and equipment to deploy and maintain that large a force. Having a larger force would give us more options.
To give you an idea of how bare the cupboard is, I was recently speaking with a high ranking officer in the Guard in one of the New England states. He told me that they've basically got no equipment left. It's all in Iraq and won't be coming back. Six months ago they got 20 new tractors -- off they went to Iraq. Then a couple months ago they got a bunch of low-boy trailers. But they had nothing to pull them with. That didn't matter, because before long the trailers were off to Iraq as well. If you think it is just the Guard that has been stripped down, you're mistaken. Many stateside regular Army units are woefully short of equipment as well.
Last edited:
I think most of our "threats" come from within. Our government needs a complete overhaul. This country was founded on certain principles, for certain reason and I think we've skewed from some of those. We need a government for the people, by the people, not this I've got more money than you, propaganda, fooling the American public bullshit that has been going on for almost 100 years now. Think about it, when someone says "this is how it is...." and most of the US listens and accepts it without questioning. Is this a fair warning that we are moving slightly away from democracy? We have been bringing problems unto ourselves. Our fore-fathers are rolling in their graves.
M1911
Moderator
Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Radical Islam is a significant threat and, IMHO, there's a good chance will end up in another world war.
North Korea and Iran are also major threats. China is modernizing its military and still has designs on Taiwan.
North Korea and Iran are also major threats. China is modernizing its military and still has designs on Taiwan.
I look at it from two points of view.
Yes I agree they are threats, but I look at it like it's a beehive...We've gone and stirred up a nest that over many decades we've let grow with anger towards the US and that's why they are dangerous to us. It seems that we impose our will on other countries policies way too much and who's to say that someone else out there can't do or have what we have or have done. That's nonsense.
Its the "do as I say and not as I do" attitude that gets us in trouble.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 731
- Likes
- 12
I dont think the draft is a bad thing as things stand now. North Korea, Iran making threaths we have to be ready. Also I never agree with Congressman Rangle but he might be right on this one. P.S. Charlie Rangle served in Korean war and was awarded a bronze star and purple heart.
Nope. Even if we never set foot in their lands or did anything to affect them at all, It's the Islamic religion that says all infidels must die.
They invaded much of southern Europe, much of Africa, southwest Asia in the past for no other reason than Allah commands it.
Anyone who believes that it's because we're doing bad things to them should have gone to some place other than a liberal arts college.
Mandatory national service for all is much different than a draft where only some get chosen.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Dems say that Pres. Bush wanted to re instate the draft a while back?
I'm not sure on the draft as I'm not sure how "fair" it would be.
I was of draft age in HS and just about everyone I knew was trying to find a way to the avoid draft. IF the draft were to be reinstated it should be set in stone if you get called you go
whether you're Bill Gates kid or Joe Sixpack"s. No exception unless a medical exemption oh a REAL exemption that can be verified.
BTW does anyone remember the chorus from the "Draft Dodgers Rag"? if you do then my last statement will make sense
I'm not sure on the draft as I'm not sure how "fair" it would be.
I was of draft age in HS and just about everyone I knew was trying to find a way to the avoid draft. IF the draft were to be reinstated it should be set in stone if you get called you go
whether you're Bill Gates kid or Joe Sixpack"s. No exception unless a medical exemption oh a REAL exemption that can be verified.
BTW does anyone remember the chorus from the "Draft Dodgers Rag"? if you do then my last statement will make sense
Last edited:
J
Jose
If some Dems said so, they lied.
Last time I checked, the only one beating the draft drum is Charlie Rangel and he is a Dumbocrat.
J
Jose
So?
John McCain is a decorated war hero, former POW, and a douchebag who takes a dump on the First and Second Amendments on a routine basis.
J
Jose
Incorrect. The majority of today's generals and admirals were junior officers during Vietnam and the immediate post war years. They saw exactly what the draftee Army was like. Would we have the same problems today? Yes, although at a smaller (yet still unsatisfactory) rate.
Similar threads
