Author Topic: Time to resurrect the draft (Read 600 times)

Sandman · « **on:** July 08, 2004, 06:29:06 PM »

I'm not sure I think it's a good idea, but Koch makes some excellent points, IMHO...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2663724

VOR · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2004, 06:59:37 PM »

That was a great article. Although I can agree with notion that we (US) as a nation come together during our darkest hours and rarely if ever when the sun is shining, I do not and most likely will never agree with conscription. It's my belief that a draftee is being denied personal freedoms guaranteed to every citizen, and service is both selfless and always a personal choice.

It's true that our armed forces are small and stretched to the limit. Only a dolt would think otherwise. This has not, however, always been the case and the draft has not always been necessary to bolster the ranks to numbers that would be adequate for our current and future state of affairs. (Of course this is speculation, which I freely admit.)

Something about the thought of homgenizing of our culture and breaking down class barriers made me want to strum my guitar and hum.

Maverick · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2004, 07:50:12 PM »

Army is currently 20,000 over mandated strength level with the stop loss actions. As long as the Army is at full strength what will be accomplished by a draft?

VOR · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2004, 07:52:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Army is currently 20,000 over mandated strength level with the stop loss actions. As long as the Army is at full strength what will be accomplished by a draft?

The mandated strength level is the real problem, IMO. Too few.

Sandman · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:02:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Army is currently 20,000 over mandated strength level with the stop loss actions. As long as the Army is at full strength what will be accomplished by a draft?

Heard today that the army is sending the training forces from NTC to Iraq. They also stated that 50% of the service members are deployed. Neither is a good indication.

I'm thinking the mandated strength levels are too low.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:07:11 PM »

and here in the USAF they are trying to give 16000 service members the pink slip.

I agree with you that the Army is undermanned. The Marines have been preparing for the last 10 years on fighting urban warfare and the one thing they realized is that numbers, not technolagy, is what wins the battle (amung other things). This is one thing in wich I agree with the current administration is they do want to increase the technolagy but they want to do it by decreasing the amount of boots.

To be honest I think the decrease also has to do w/ the army's inability to recruit.....I could be wrong but they didnt meet their recruiting goals for the 6 years that I served in the Corps

Coolridr · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2004, 09:56:28 PM »

a draft would make a dissatisfied service. There are plenty of volunteers. Look at the backlash of Viet-nam by people forced to serve. Let us that want to be here in the armed forces take care of business and leave those who don't alone.

anonymous · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:19:01 PM »

the only persons screeching about bringing back the draft are those who want to hinder the effectiveness of the military by creating morale problems that can be used for political gain.

Sandman · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:33:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
the only persons screeching about bringing back the draft are those who want to hinder the effectiveness of the military by creating morale problems that can be used for political gain.

Read the article.

anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:43:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Read the article.

i did. before i posted. i think hes dead wrong and has an agenda. the last paragraph is telling. more importantly if the military needs a draft it will ask. the military asks for what it needs to get the job done. you need to learn the differences between citizen soldiers and professional soldiers.

J_A_B · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:11:51 PM »

So you're all for drafting women too?

Equality and all

J_A_B

Gunslinger · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:18:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
So you're all for drafting women too?

Equality and all

J_A_B

YES

If the draft calls for it. Here's why

A FEW woman w/ the loudest voices got them into some of the most dangerous jobs in the military w/ the exception of front line infantry units.

This all in the name of equality and womans rights....well w/ rights comes responsabilities....if they didnt want these rights they should have had more opposition or voice when the few were arguing for the many. The truth is I heard none.

To be honest woman are highly integrated into the military nowadays. There are alot of woman serving in REAL combat in Iraq right now. The problem is: what happens to them when they get pregnant. Simple answer they get shipped to the rear. Pregnancies hurt operational units as much as a casualty when it comes to manpower. If a ship set sail with 2000 sailors and it was 100 short to begin with......20 of them get pregnant....that means all the rest on board who allready work 10 hour shifts 7 days a week have to work that much harder to make up the short fall.

But hey it does take two to tango and they want their rights so their you have it.

EDIT

I still do not think a draft is nescesary...I think volunteers can still be recruited to fill the ranks.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:30:35 PM »

Pregnancy doesn't just happen. When men are laid up with the clap from getting a 10 dollar booty bounce while on Liberty, the ship suffers the same staffing problems.

Don't want your women soldiers/sairlors to get pregnant? Don't **** them. problem solved. if they can't be disciplined enough to not fornicate with their platoon mates, then maybe they're in the wrong line of work to begin with.

What were men doing to satisfy their sexual urges before women were allowed to serve?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:38:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Pregnancy doesn't just happen. When men are laid up with the clap from getting a 10 dollar booty bounce while on Liberty, the ship suffers the same staffing problems.

Don't want your women soldiers/sairlors to get pregnant? Don't **** them. problem solved. if they can't be disciplined enough to not fornicate with their platoon mates, then maybe they're in the wrong line of work to begin with.

What were men doing to satisfy their sexual urges before women were allowed to serve?

If you read the last line in my thread it does say it takes two to tango.

its true that sex does happen but the military does have strict rules of fraternization in forward areas. Of course that's were you get the term "dumpster bunnies"

Red are you for or against their being drafted if it happens?

the only issue I was pointing out with the whole pregnancy thing is that it does happen and it does hurt.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2004, 10:33:43 AM »

Gunslingr...I must have missed that last line...sorry.

If women are drafted, then of course they should go. Unless, they are pregnant before the time of their draft. which should be confirmed by a military physician at the time of their induction

I agree, it does hurt, but so do the myriad of other things that other soldiers do, by mistake or otherwise. A vehicle kills four Korean girls on a rain slicked road. That affects morale as well. completely uinintentional, but it happens.

Some Army nut rapes an Okinawan child, that hurts morale too, intentional, and total BS.

Both instances affected, but did not cripple the Military. They overcame both, and countless others, and I have full confidence that the Military can withstand this, as well.

My $0.02