The US needs a Draft!

[Rush Limbaugh]

if people would be brave enough nobody would go in the first place at all. But we are just afraid of the consequenses.

The problem is reality. Some things are worth fighting and dying for.

[Eranshahr]

but what are you fighting and dying for? that is the question.

I totally agree eran-- facing death is something I have done and it definitely doesnt make you more agreeable to the idea of dying, it just makes you afraid in a deep place, afraid in a way that cannot be described in words, it is a feeling that is truly special.

seriously the war in afghanistan was appropriate, Iraq was not, and he lied to get us there, but even the good people got trapped and now we are over there.

it is a huge mess, and sad development, I honestly think saddams sons should have been killed and then let him maintain power.--- but like I said everyone is all in now, good and bad, it just doesnt matter war is war.

It will be stopped on our end relatively soon I imagine yet, the damage is done.

I support Afghanistan, But Iraq was a good idea, but when the occupation began I started to disagree.
the damage is bad than a colateral one. i mean the damage done is something that iraqis will think of when they meet Americans, USA in their eyes is now a true devil. Americans have became the new Iranians in their eyes.
It is not even death that is needed. I fell on a max 1.80 m tree and one of the tree arms left a wound from my belly button to my chest. It was a deep wound and even then i was afraid of bleeding to death.
When facing death I was frozen, I felt it was the end. I thought I had nothign else to lose, my reaction was to kick the knife out of my attackers hand ( It failed and I accidentaly kicked him in the face) then i ran away. when I was home I sill didn't understand a thing.
since then I am still afraid of people suddenly putting their hands down their pockets, I always think someone will take out a knife or a gun.
" I am not afraid of death"
You are not human then!

[VoodooTengo]

Why they wouldn't fight for the country? Do you think patriotism is attribute somehow limited to few?

First off i wasnt doubting they're morale others were, but you tend to resent people who take you off your chosen path and endanger their lives.

Question would be, would they BELIEVE that war is NECESSARY.
If they do not believe it, their morale will be low. And people will be much more critical about wars when they have to participate.

No, it really doesnt matter if you believe in the war when your in combat or the ideas or purposes behind it, you do your job and dont think about it, just cause does not really effect morale, morale is effected by food, shelter, weather you are winning or losing, fatigue, leadership, etc, but belief iin the purpose of the war would have nothing to do with that. People in the military tend not to speak out about their feelings of their activities because they are prohibited from doing so. And there are more pragmatic ways of getting people to care than possibly getting them killed.

Mandatory military service, modest daily pay (small though) and rotation will help keep costs down.

So you suggest we grab them cut theyre pay (which wasnt even the expensive part of employing them the equiptment was, because the cheapest part of an army is the soldier) and then send them off to fight.

It's something along lines of reasonably healthy young man beating old lady who is tied to wheelchair. Current situation again does not really require that much special skills either. Asymmetric warfare in urban enviroment tends to be too fast and intense to give room for any training to surface before single engagement is over.

Once again not true at all, first off your analogy is kind of , its more like a reasonably healthy young man chasing a shadow in a forest. The soldiers are doing more than sitting around get blown up and shot at (and in a shooting engagement the training always surfaces i.e look at our US to insurgent casualty ratio) they go out and they hunt down and arrest insurgents, and do what little they can to help the iraqi indiginous forces.

As for casualties... That would be the reason why leaders would be more careful when going to war. People just do not tend to vote leader who got their kids killed in pointless war.

Unfortunately it often only comes to the general publics conciousness that the war is poinless after its been started, as for Bush he does not have to worry about being re-elected, and i dont like a policy of sacrificing, involuntairly mind you, young people in order to bring about the downfall of a politician, or using them to show America how much their loss hurts.

[Tiwaz]

First off i wasnt doubting they're morale others were, but you tend to resent people who take you off your chosen path and endanger their lives.

Depends, people tend to accept that some things just have to be done.
If they believe that

No, it really doesnt matter if you believe in the war when your in combat or the ideas or purposes behind it, you do your job and dont think about it, just cause does not really effect morale, morale is effected by food, shelter, weather you are winning or losing, fatigue, leadership, etc, but belief iin the purpose of the war would have nothing to do with that. People in the military tend not to speak out about their feelings of their activities because they are prohibited from doing so. And there are more pragmatic ways of getting people to care than possibly getting them killed.

Don't be silly. Belief in war is very important. If you do not believe what you fight for, you take everything much more heavily.

So you suggest we grab them cut theyre pay (which wasnt even the expensive part of employing them the equiptment was, because the cheapest part of an army is the soldier) and then send them off to fight.

They do their duty for their nation. Rights and priviledges must be counterbalanced by responsibilities.

Once again not true at all, first off your analogy is kind of , its more like a reasonably healthy young man chasing a shadow in a forest. The soldiers are doing more than sitting around get blown up and shot at (and in a shooting engagement the training always surfaces i.e look at our US to insurgent casualty ratio) they go out and they hunt down and arrest insurgents, and do what little they can to help the iraqi indiginous forces.

I was talking about original invasion being beating a old lady in wheelchair.
Once it got into asymmetrical warfare it went out of military textbook and into bloody urban conflict where there is really rather little you can train people to do.

As for training... Who says conscripts cannot be trained? It's really odd that people have this strange concept that when you are drafted you are sent to the field without training.

WW2, Germany had military which was just about the best in war. They did it with conscripts. They just TRAINED them first.

Unfortunately it often only comes to the general publics conciousness that the war is poinless after its been started, as for Bush he does not have to worry about being re-elected, and i dont like a policy of sacrificing, involuntairly mind you, young people in order to bring about the downfall of a politician, or using them to show America how much their loss hurts.

Bush does not need to worry, SENATORS do. And it is my understanding that senators hold power over Bush yes?

And once people know the pain of war, it tends to remind them afterwards as well. Vietnam war made USA curb it's global wars great deal even after switching to professional army.

You also forget one thing, as it is, USA sacrifices INVOLUNTARILY young people. And it does not even bring downfall of politicians responsible for it or teach USA a lesson on harsh reality of war.

Or do you fall prey to idea that those numbers about deaths out there who do not have US flag on sleeve are not people?

[LoZz]

look drafting only works when the civilan population feels under threat, like they do in isreal and like they did in ww1 and ww2, and even then you had people objecting. so drafting for iraq will work out just as well as it did in vietnam. the draftie is also a poor quailty soilder, regardless if he is an american or whatever. if he doesnt want to be their (like most people if you drafted them into iraq) he will perform poorly, he wont give a damn, he wont be watching anyones back but his own he will only be thinking about home.

you also then have to consider the implications on the home. if you draft a single parent, who will look after his or her children? any modern day draft would include both men and women most likly, times have changed since world war 2 or vietnam when mum stayed at home and looked after the kids, many families are now single parent ones.

it can also backfire if you draft a celebrity like brad pitt or tom cruise, if they say no and make a big fuss the anti war movment will grow!

[Scorch]

No country ever 'needs a Draft!' in times of peace. In fact, no country ever 'needs a Draft!' for a war that's being fought overseas.

The military is a noble profession, to die for one's country is courageous and patriotic. However it's not for everyone. The only time any citizen should be forced to face the possibility of dying for his country is when the country is threatened, as in, the actual country.

In other words, a draft because a united South American force is about to invade Texas and all your lazy citizens are talking on TWC instead of volunteering is acceptable. A draft because the government wants more people in order to protect 'American interests' overseas is not.

[Eranshahr]

Then again it is noble to die. Well why can't I just come and kill you right now then? Let's say you are protecting America and I am the Foreign Islamo-Iranian Jihadist trying to blow up Houston.So you are dead, nobody would care about it except your relatives and friends. Instead they will care about those who survived or stopped me.

it is never noble to die, especially not when trying to kill someone else- in the military. it is just unfortunate and inecessary.

about the drafting, to force someone to do something they don't want to. That is not democratic and it is going against the personal wills of a person. Maybe if he/she wants to fight then it is ok. but if he/she doesn't then we should let him/her be.

[Tiwaz]

look drafting only works when the civilan population feels under threat, like they do in isreal and like they did in ww1 and ww2, and even then you had people objecting. so drafting for iraq will work out just as well as it did in vietnam. the draftie is also a poor quailty soilder, regardless if he is an american or whatever. if he doesnt want to be their (like most people if you drafted them into iraq) he will perform poorly, he wont give a damn, he wont be watching anyones back but his own he will only be thinking about home.

That is kind of the point... If people do not feel that they are under real threat they do not look kindly at military adventures abroad!

I would hope, not that draft would make waging wars easier, but more DIFFICULT to start one.

you also then have to consider the implications on the home. if you draft a single parent, who will look after his or her children? any modern day draft would include both men and women most likly, times have changed since world war 2 or vietnam when mum stayed at home and looked after the kids, many families are now single parent ones.

So? Do you pretend that there won't be war orphans as it is because they are not your nationality?

it can also backfire if you draft a celebrity like brad pitt or tom cruise, if they say no and make a big fuss the anti war movment will grow!

So?

Again, point is not to make going to war for government or leaders EASY.
It is to be made so horribly risky and unattractive option that even idiots like Bush would reconsider.

[Scorch]

Then again it is noble to die. Well why can't I just come and kill you right now then? Let's say you are protecting America and I am the Foreign Islamo-Iranian Jihadist trying to blow up Houston.So you are dead, nobody would care about it except your relatives and friends. Instead they will care about those who survived or stopped me.

it is never noble to die, especially not when trying to kill someone else- in the military. it is just unfortunate and inecessary.

No, war is not noble, neither is dying. But to face that for the greater good of your nation is.

about the drafting, to force someone to do something they don't want to. That is not democratic and it is going against the personal wills of a person. Maybe if he/she wants to fight then it is ok. but if he/she doesn't then we should let him/her be.

Again, when the physical security of the nation is threatened, that is, there's an army at your door, a draft is justifiable, in my opinion.

[Eranshahr]

for the greater good of your nation? yes it is good to die for a nation. look modern borders are just formality, like the EU. I can go anywhere I want, they won't ever check my paassport anymore. So dying for a nation is just dying. and won't you make a greater good if you are alive and working for the nation to become more technologically advanced?

But I thought America was the country who never would be defeated? that would bomb others to the stone age, so why should America of all countries need a draft?

[humvee2800]

Drafts are for mass recruitment in a time of peril for the whole country, a time when there is a (heh) Clear and present danger.

[Eranshahr]

yes and when America is so strong and so much above all others, there should be no " threat" to America, so why even bother about draft?

[Thanatos]

for the greater good of your nation? yes it is good to die for a nation. look modern borders are just formality, like the EU. I can go anywhere I want, they won't ever check my paassport anymore. So dying for a nation is just dying. and won't you make a greater good if you are alive and working for the nation to become more technologically advanced?

Trespass illegally into Mexico and say that.

[Eranshahr]

So it really does matters where the borders for human beings are?

[morteduzionism]

No country ever 'needs a Draft!' in times of peace. In fact, no country ever 'needs a Draft!' for a war that's being fought overseas.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

People could only think about the "draft" during war time and forget that it is not needed during peace.

My only point is that people, as a whole, would be more attentive to their elected officials decisions if those decisions may affect their lives(i.e. a draft). I WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT BEING IN THE MILITARY MAKES ONE MORE INTERESTED/KNOWLEDGEABLE OF POLITICS!

The military is a noble profession, to die for one's country is courageous and patriotic. However it's not for everyone. The only time any citizen should be forced to face the possibility of dying for his country is when the country is threatened, as in, the actual country.

Thank you...

With a draft, IMO, politicians would be less inclined to be adventurous and less liberal with their use of the military.

In other words, a draft because a united South American force is about to invade Texas and all your lazy citizens are talking on TWC instead of volunteering is acceptable. A draft because the government wants more people in order to protect 'American interests' overseas is not.

Exactly.

[Scorch]

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

Thank you...

You're welcome.

[ajm317]

If you're not willing to die for your country, then you shouldn't live in it as a citizen.

I'm fine with dying for my country.

Which means that in the last 75 years the total number of times it would be acceptable to draft me is 1 (WWII.)

What I am not too keen on is dying to save a nickel on gas prices. You can take that and shove it.

Call me for WWIII. Until then **** off.

Are you that afraid to die?

Hell yes I am.

Not all of us have a rosey picture of an afterlife.

[sephodwyrm]

My only point is that people, as a whole, would be more attentive to their elected officials decisions if those decisions may affect their lives(i.e. a draft). I WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT BEING IN THE MILITARY MAKES ONE MORE INTERESTED/KNOWLEDGEABLE OF POLITICS!

I totally agree.
Military service makes people more inclined to decide which type of foreign policy they want to be engaged in, i.e. what type of government they really want.

[VoodooTengo]

Depends, people tend to accept that some things just have to be done.
If they believe that

Sometimes they do but usually they do not have to be done and thats the problem.

Don't be silly. Belief in war is very important. If you do not believe what you fight for, you take everything much more heavily.

Its important in the 90 percent of the time the soldiers are sitting around waiting for another mission but in actual combat it could matter less, in combat it would be about you and the guys next to you and the guys trying to kill you not about politics.

They do their duty for their nation. Rights and priviledges must be counterbalanced by responsibilities.

One great thing about living in a free nation is the freedom to free yourself from responsibilities, freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

I was talking about original invasion being beating a old lady in wheelchair.
Once it got into asymmetrical warfare it went out of military textbook and into bloody urban conflict where there is really rather little you can train people to do.

True you cannot train people not to combust but training still counts for responding to an emergency situation or going on raids or being assaulted by small arms which still on occasion still happens.

As for training... Who says conscripts cannot be trained? It's really odd that people have this strange concept that when you are drafted you are sent to the field without training.

I assume that directed at someone else because im not disputing that. In wartime that may be true but despite how a lot of people feel we are not in a real "wartime" situation now.

WW2, Germany had military which was just about the best in war. They did it with conscripts. They just TRAINED them first.

The Nazis did have the finest military possibly in all of history, at the beginning and middle of the war, unfortunately they squandered them in russia and africa, and by the end they were reduced to a few divisions of teenage volksgrenadiers, who were drafted and lightly trained and shipped to the front, and fought horribly.

Bush does not need to worry, SENATORS do. And it is my understanding that senators hold power over Bush yes?

No thats not true, first off we have to legislative bodies the House of Representatives made up of Represenatives and the Senate made up of senators neither of which as a whole is more important. Second they could defund the troops which they wont and third the senate does not have the majority necessary to censure or impeach the president, which would be pointless anyway because as harry reid pointed out hes the worst president in our history and we all know that so whats the point.

And once people know the pain of war, it tends to remind them afterwards as well. Vietnam war made USA curb it's global wars great deal even after switching to professional army.

It makes us remember for 20 years or so as it has for all of history the pain of war is healed by time. We also didnt curb or global wars we just started fighting them with American money and someone elses young men.

You also forget one thing, as it is, USA sacrifices INVOLUNTARILY young people. And it does not even bring downfall of politicians responsible for it or teach USA a lesson on harsh reality of war.

I do believe we know the harsh realities of war but we are (though we dont like to admit it) possibly the most militaristic bunch of people on the face of the earth. The problem is that we know the harsh realities all to well, and the casualties seem more personal as opposed to statistics.

Or do you fall prey to idea that those numbers about deaths out there who do not have US flag on sleeve are not people?

Honestly Americans are more concerned about Americans than Iraqis. Even so there really isnt anything we can do to stop them from killing each other in Iraq short of either ethnically clensing one or two of the sects, or nuking it to oblivion, either of which obviously wont happen.

[Sidmen]

I do believe we know the harsh realities of war but we are (though we dont like to admit it) possibly the most militaristic bunch of people on the face of the earth. The problem is that we know the harsh realities all to well, and the casualties seem more personal as opposed to statistics.

We are far from the most militaristic. I would say that North korea (with more soldiers than the US), Switzerland (With most of it's population trained for war), And the huge quantities of military dictatorships around the world trump us as a militaristic nation.