Draft reinstated, 2005

I don't mind fighting, it's the dieing that I mind. Tell me I'm guaranteed to live through a war and I"ll fight with the best of them. If I die I don't want it to be serving someone else's whim or fighting someone else's fight.

You may be too old for the, possible, draft but, you can still enlist if you're under 35.

You don't mind someone else giving their life for you, do you?

In war, there are two rules.
1) Good people die.
2) You can't change rule 1.

Anyone that thinks they can be guaranteed safety in life, for even 24 hours, needs to tell Toto that they're not in Kansas any more.

Maybe you just need clarification of Your Life

They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

My suggestion? Leave now!

It is very clear to everyone our numerous military deployments arround the world are rather on the skimpy side and the defense deptment bigwigs are concerned at lower enlistment quotas . Off course their sons( and the sons of senators and congressmen usually get draft deferments) so they have no quams at reinstating the draft ,let the grunts be the cannon foder as long as their military objectives are reached. the only thing holding the passing of those agendas back is that this is an election year, once that has passed mandatory enlistment You see. all these bases have to be manned and you do have constant attrition due to retirement.battle casualties ect.

Ok, shall we have look at the definition of liberty?



So to be subjected to a compulsory draft would be against the very idea of liberty.

As for the attitude of: 'you're either with us or against us', well that's just ignorant of other people and their way of living life. Some of us, given the choice, would prefer to solve our problems without using weapons.

That's Our liberty.



If you still don't get it, here's a blast from the past:



[edit on 12-7-2004 by shanti23]

usmilitary.about.com...

Some info for people who care/would like to know.

seriously....
this is a hugely important topic - and one which has me scared.
Put political preferences aside and think for a moment, ya'll.

5600 retired servicemembers were involuntarily recalled this summer.
Allow that fact to register.

*5600*.

That means our military was in *dire need* of active duty personnel.
Why? Because our armed forces are being depleted. Killed. Maimed. Wiped out.

Since Mr. Bush doesn't appear to be rattled by this no-win situation
it's safe to assume he's going to need more troops in the future, no?
Where do you think they'll be coming from? Mars?





[edit on 19-9-2004 by bushblows]

With so many countries pulling their troops out, they are more
than likely looking to see how they will replenish the loss man power.

All this talk about reinstating the Draft started with Representative Charles Rangell . He specifically stated, as I recall when he said this on the news, that he wanted the draft to come back so that everyone would have a stake in any war (meaning the iraq war and possibly future wars), such that people would protest just like they did back in the 60's. I really have to state that thats a pretty terrible reason. The vietnam era was a huge rift in the nations society and history and still afffects poltical, economic, and social decisions to this day. It was also an extremely dangerous time for the socio-poltical stability of the nation. To 'hope' that something like it happens again, to outright try and engineer it, is idiotic and dangerous. Rangell is also the guy who requested hillary clinton run for senate office in NY.

There will be no draft, precisely for the reasons that Rangell wants there to be one.

i am gonna break my legs so i dont have to go

Lol Your right there, I bet all does Overweight americans are going to hurt the army becuase their going to have to spend a little more money on them.

The problem isn't that the U.S. doesn't have enough soldiers and equipment; the problem is that it's all spread too far out. The U.S. should consolidate its forces, putting soldiers & equipment only where it's needed the most. Then, what's not needed outside the country should return to the U.S.

Am so glad my son has dual citizenships.
Don't like the draft never will unless it is to defend the homeland at home.

They are restructuring lots of the global troop positioning right now. They're moving troops back from the dmz in korea right now, and they moved central command to qatar a while back. That was no small move, and certainly not 'temporary'. It shows a shift in geo-strategic considerations. I bet before long they'll move lots more troops out of germany. They were there to occupy it, then to defend it, and I think that they can handle a russian invasion (if we pretend that there was one) long enough that having US troops there isn't warranted anymore. The major threat isn't the SU (obviously) so things are being shifted. Central Asia and the Gulf are vitally important. (as obviously are some other areas)

The shame about it is that its difficult to find a place to base US troops in the gulf. Putting the small number of troops in Saudi Arabia that were there after the Gulf War is part of bin ladens claimed reasons for war. I'd think that the only troops in Iraq will be dealing with Iraq, and Jordan prolly can't accept any. The Sudan would be an interesting choice, might stabilize the rest of africa too if you think about it, while still be a better jumppoint for the mid east than germany. Turkey looks to be off limits. And isreal is the real disappointment there. Basing US troops in Israel would be great logistically. Has numerous ports on the Med, could even extend to control the Suez canal and thus access to the red sea and indian oceans. But it just has too many political implications now.


The call ups simply aren't a response to causualties, they are a reponse to having an entirely new field of responsibility, namely iraq, which requires lots of soldiers to patrol and pacify it. Its not a measure to replace deaths and such.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Mandatory national service is a good thing. A populace of individuals schooled in the specialties germane national security is a very good thing. Having a population of individuals who have something invested in their own liberty is a wonderful thing.

I'm all for the draft and alternative service for conscientious objectors. Canada needs to prepare for a massive influx of US emigrants.

I'm just brainstorming here, had a random idea... Why can't we have people who are in prison right now go to Iraq? You know, tell them, "You can remain in jail for the rest of your sentence, or sign up with the U.S. Army and/or Peace Corps and go to Iraq and try to help people instead of serving time for past misdeeds. Your choice." Of course, the truly sick and demented people would end up staying in prison, but there are plenty of people in prison who made a mistake, and are paying the price for that mistake, but would jump at the chance to do this, I'd think...

I dunno, I used to think that. Israel has it and so does germany. I agree with most of your reasoning below (ever read starship troopers, you might be a heinlein fan). But the British Empire was able to conqure a quarter of the world with a volunteer army. And I rather like the idea that the US is able to do everything that it is going right now with volunteer citizen soldiers. It makes their service all the more distinguished.


Eh, they'll just get a presidental pardon again anyway...


Because its one of the first historical signs of the deterioration of a nation? That and usuing mercenaries. The romans started doing somethign of the sorts and it went bad at times. The brits did a lot of that and lost a war against 13 disunited colonies and ragtag poorly equiped and poorly trained farmers in the woods.

The problem is that the 'sick and demented' (by which I think you mean the 'true' criminals, as opposed to regular people who have commited crimes) aren't necessarily not going to enlist. And, also, it does raise a question of what exactly the country is doing, and it makes 'lets get tough on crime' laws rather questionable, since in effect you'll be arresting people and saying, well, we'll let you out if you join the army. Doesn't seem quite right. Besides, criminals should be punished, and the volunteers soldiers that the US have now shouldn't be forced to mix with them.

In the old days many a young miscreant was given the chance to make a better life for himself when a judge offered him the choice of jail or enlistment in the Marine Corps. Those days are gone, however.

The service doesn't need criminals who are doing hard time. The US military wants intelligent, educated, dedicated, honorable, loyal, well-disciplined individuals to serve--most especially the Marine Corps. The idiotic acitons of the buffoons at Abu Ghraib is just one reason why.

Which is why they patrol poor rural or urban areas looking for young people to snatch up and fight wars for the causes of rich white men who couldn't give a crap about them or their towns.

"screw the cities that are falling apart, screw the families that can't afford to eat, lets take their kids and ship them to die in some godforsaken country. We'll give them an education! As long as they can use it for a career in the military. But if they get hurt on the job, we won't do anything to help them. It's win-win!"

Go marines.