It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Setting US up for the Draft

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinslayer
All I am saying is that defending our country and our way of life is not easy and that it cannot always fall on the few. It is past due to share the burden of defense. Basically freedom is not free of charge and it is time people started paying their dues.


Of course freedom is not free, but that trite phase won't buy you paper to write it on.

Because freedom isn't free, people pay taxes to fund the men fighting. Men and women work to build the planes, bombs, ammo, etc to support the fighting forces.

In the Marine Corps, at least when I was in, it took 8 Marines to support just 1 in the infantry. The same goes here in the civilian sector. We will also need a large amount of young smart kids to work on the computer systems, software, setwork, etc that the military can't handle on it's own.

But the point of it is, is that the draft is bad because it robs people of the right to think freely. To be free to support peace even in a time of war. Those are the cold facts of America. It has it's ups and downs.

I also do not think that the majority of fighting had anything directly to do with American freedom since Korea, and in that we should draft every kid 18-25? For what?

There is no reason.




posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
i think that the bills of which you speak were actually put forward as a protest to against the war by democrats. i believe neither bill has won any support. the universal service act calls for the enlistment of everyone , male or female, between the ages of 18 and 26(it may actually raise the age to 30? but im not sure i remember that correctly) supposedly this would make people whose children where normally all but immune to the draft have to serve, hopefully causing some rich grandparents in congress to have to think about their progeny being smeared across the dessert rather than it being just the smear of some poor young slob. i could be wrong though.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The Service Act is actually a good idea if you read it Maybe it will get people more interested in high school with physical fitness so they enter as stronger people. It also seems a way to eliminate a # load of federal jobs, so I would be concerned about that if I worked as a contactor or a specialist for the gov't. Those people pulling down 80k will suddenly be replaced by computer anaylsts making base pay out of high school or college.


As far as losing your child to war, it may happenbut that nay not be the case. Raise you kids to try to achieve a little more than beating Mario bros and maybe when they do have to enlist, they can choose something better than forward observer in the Army or Infantry. Not that there is anything wrong with that, you just have a better chance of bineg KIA.

Anyways, that's my take.... "don't fear the future becasue #, we can't control it!!!"



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The Service Act is actually a good idea if you read it Maybe it will get people more interested in high school with physical fitness so they enter as stronger people. It also seems a way to eliminate a # load of federal jobs, so I would be concerned about that if I worked as a contactor or a specialist for the gov't.


Um, not the point. The point is, is that people in America control their future. This would steal that from them.

The draft is fundamentally against the American way of life, which would be control of your future, control of the fruits of your labor, to name a few.

I would however like to say that this would NOT decrease jobs in general, but rather increase them, as there are a hell of a lot of kids between 18-25.

There is just no cause for this type of action. What end would it bring?

None.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Actually, I think More jobs would be created and that is a good thing. However, the Jobs would be created by eliminating others. For every high paying job there was in the private sector, you can hire two young federal "draftees" and still undercut cost I am sure.

As far as wheter it is right or wrong, well, personally I think it would help with some direction for kids. Would you ratehr support your to 20 something children, or have them work for the gov't, get some decnet benefits and at 25 maybe have something in life. Better than parking it on the couch and getting high all day playing NIntendo.

Change is evident, and if history proves anything it isn't always pretty.




posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
So this means that everyone that's the appropriate age is in the army if they choose or dont choose to be in it?



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
uhhh...yes. Like I said, would you have them (children) sitting around doing nothing but 'saying' they are going to change the world. I have at no time said i want to draft kids to go fight a #ty war. It seems more like what they are suggesting is civil service, not necessarily milatary service.


df1

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinslayer
What's wrong with a draft, it is about time the rest of the country starts earning their citizenship instead of always relying on the faithful few volunteers that are always out on the line.


I never cease to be amazed everytime I hear this type of corrupt logic.

My american citizenship is my birthright. It is not granted to me by the current batch of corrupt politicians in power. The government must earn my loyalty not vice versa. And to this point the government is doing a lousy job of earning that loyalty. Unfortunately most of my fellow citizens have been so dumbed down that they believe the government has the right to demand service from the citizens.

If it is your desire to be the servant of the Haliburtons of the world then you go for it, but do not try to lay this false patriotism on others. It is a crock of manure.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

As far as wheter it is right or wrong, well, personally I think it would help with some direction for kids.


Direction? Who cares about direction. I'll not have my two sons be drafted to give some lazy hack of a parent's kid direction. If the kids can't hack it, tough. Learn the hard way like everyone else does.


Would you ratehr support your to 20 something children, or have them work for the gov't, get some decnet benefits and at 25 maybe have something in life.


My kids aren't lazy good for nothings, so really, I would be supporting EVERYONE ELSES listless kids. What you advocate is a 2 year void in college.


Better than parking it on the couch and getting high all day playing NIntendo.


So you are saying that all kids between 18 and 25 are lazy recluses that will only be good for supersizing my order. The logic is painted with a broad brush, and charges over the line of ignorance. Do you even have kids?



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Yes, I have a child who is 5,and no, I do not want my son to be drafted to fight an 'oil war' or sent to finish a job someones father didn't finish. I don't think I explained myself properly. I did not state that all children or 20 or even 30 somethings are lazy. However, it is in the majority. Too many people not doing anything with their lives, and living off of us.
Now, if those kids were made to do something useful for community or country, and given a chance to learn a skill he could use when he is done with his time, do you NOT think that is beneficial. I am trying to emrace and understand the good in something I have no control over man, that's all. If more people like us got together and instead of jsut sitting behind somputers got together to create a voice, maybe we could make a difference and my sons future will be a bit brighter.....



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   


DarkRain: In the Army, Marines, and Air Force, you do 3 inactive, and 3 active,


Whenever anyone signs up, they enter what is called a Military Service Obligation (MSO). The MSO is a set period of 8 years. In the individual service member's contract it states how much of that period is on active duty or reserve duty and the remainder is spent in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). In other words if you want to sign up for 5 years of active service the remaining 3 is spent in the IRR. Basically, if in a time of national crisis, the service can call you back to duty from the IRR. After 8 years, you're done. They have to find someone else.

TC



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
And also in reply to your remarks...

1. An apology for the ignorant remark would be nice. You proved you own by stating that children need 'no direction'. NIce. So, let kids struggle when they have no direction and, oh well, tough #. Those are the ones on public assistance.

2. I do not advocate a 2 year void in college. I am stating that those who can never get into would benefit tremendously. Also, if a child had to do 2 years and also go to college, he would still gradute by 23 and would also have smarts that the real world taught him instead of being green and going into the job market.

3. Everyone hopes their children never have to super-size fries or die alone in a ditch fighting a #ty war. We all want them to be successful people. Now, Is that logic too broad for you?



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I have one argument against the draft and the reason for Stop Loss. With the institution of the army's "Army of One" campaign It takes a lot more than the old Vietnam eight weeks to turn out a soldier. With todays technology and battle plans, how long does it actually take to turn out a soldier? Placing a non sufficiently trained individual into a combat situation is both a disservice to that individual and a danger to all involved. With todays complicated weapons and targeting systems it is easy to understand why the Stop Loss-- their has been insufficient time too recruit the bodies and train them to take veterans places. You wouldn't send in the water-boy to take the QBs place, would you?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join