NationStates Jolt Archive

This is real, if you don't believe me go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number "HR 163".

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH

Every last name on this bill is a DEMOCRAT!

Come on lefties - Support your party and get in line for the draft!

This is real, if you don't believe me go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number "HR 163".

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH

Every last name on this bill is a DEMOCRAT!

Come on lefties - Support your party and get in line for the draft!

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer? I'd also like to point out that this is a sign of Democrats actually supporting the war by showing their strength in resolve to let their children go fight. The Republicons squashed that bill faster than a tick on a smell hound. Go figure.

*coff*

This is real, if you don't believe me go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number "HR 163".

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH

Every last name on this bill is a DEMOCRAT!

Come on lefties - Support your party and get in line for the draft!
Strawman...one rep going against his party, and there is generally one of these floating around at any point and time.

yeah, because when one Democratic representative does something that automatically means that ALL DEMOCRATS SUPPORT IT UNCONDITIONALLY.

please get over this partisan crap. it is so very very boring.

This is real, if you don't believe me go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number "HR 163".

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH

Every last name on this bill is a DEMOCRAT!

Come on lefties - Support your party and get in line for the draft!

I'm getting tired of this peice of tripe being posting this here seemingly every single day.

It's a dead bill. It was simply a publicity stunt. It didn't pass. Any attempt to pass a conscription bill is highly unlikely to be passed.

Get over it. :rolleyes:

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer? I'd also like to point out that this is a sign of Democrats actually supporting the war by showing their strength in resolve to let their children go fight. The Republicons squashed that bill faster than a tick on a smell hound. Go figure.

*coff*

If the ranks of the enlisted are chock full of Democrats, then tell me why they tend to vote Republican?

If the ranks of the enlisted are chock full of Democrats, then tell me why they tend to vote Republican?

When I was serving, just about everyone I knew who served with me was a Democrat. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but we came out in droves to vote Clinton into office twice.

In election 2000, if you may recall, many of the military votes weren't counted because the postage date on the ballot was after the deadline. So we'll never know how those thousands of people voted.

We'll see what happens this year.

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer? I'd also like to point out that this is a sign of Democrats actually supporting the war by showing their strength in resolve to let their children go fight. The Republicons squashed that bill faster than a tick on a smell hound. Go figure.

*coff*
You support the draft?

When I was serving, just about everyone I knew who served with me was a Democrat. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but we came out in droves to vote Clinton into office twice.

In election 2000, if you may recall, many of the military votes weren't counted because the postage date on the ballot was after the deadline. So we'll never know how those thousands of people voted.

We'll see what happens this year.
And in the 20 years I served... the vast majority were Republicans. I hate to make this statement, as it will be used against me but the only Democrats I knew were black. When I asked them why, the only answer they could give me was "because I've always been".

You support the draft?
i support drafting any and all persons who vote to undertake a war.

i support drafting any and all persons who vote to undertake a war.
But that means to be against the secrecy of voting. And that is a fundamental right. Otherwise pressure could be exposed on the voter if he/she can´t vote secretly. Or why else do you think that Saddam always got 99%? One candidate and open "voting" forced people to vote Yes. The same is the case for any dictatorship being it communists or fascists. They all used that "voting" system of open ballots and unity lists.
A draft is an usable system in order to serve the personal needs of the military. France was the first country in modern times who introduced it during the revolutionary wars in the 1790s. It was abolished in 2000 actually. Many European countries are still using it.
Given the engagement of the US in the world it could make sense to reestablish it to get enough personal.
BTW, usually the draft is of course only for the male population. Israel is an exception of that. It has it for both males and females.

According to you America was once a dictatorship?
In the early elections it was open and not secret!
In fact people cheered when they saw the person vote the the same as them.
Read a history book!

Seeing as my eyesight is so bad I can't be forced into a draft I have no problem with it. Its great to be almost legally blind lol

According to you America was once a dictatorship?
In the early elections it was open and not secret!
In fact people cheered when they saw the person vote the the same as them.
Read a history book!
Seeing as my eyesight is so bad I can't be forced into a draft I have no problem with it. Its great to be almost legally blind lol
I´m not American, so why should I care abou that? BTW, I spoke about open "vote" and unity lists - meaning only the option to vote one candidate/list/party.
The fact that this open voting wasn´t such a good thing is obviously shown by the fact that the US is today also using secret voting.
Open voting was also used in a lot of Europe in the 19 th century. That worked very well to contain people from voting liberal parties.

Democrats want YOU in the US Army! (like it or not!)


I highly doubt it, not being a US citizen, and all that.

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer?

seeing as how the draft would only apply to men thats a fairly mute point

"According to you America was once a dictatorship?
In the early elections it was open and not secret!"
Not a dictatorship. But not as free and as much a country following the principals of human rights at it is today. Up until 1865 the southern states had slavery and up until the 1960s the African American population wasn´t allowed to sit in the same bus over there.
The United States has a better record than most other countries of the world. But the "good old days" weren´t that good in all respects. Also not in the US. Especially for certain groups.

i support drafting any and all persons who vote to undertake a war.

That limits the draft to members of Congress then, if I understand your wacky US political system correctly, yes? And that the last time the draft would have been applied would have been following the declaration of war on Romania?

Same bus but only in the back actually. Was whole reason the civil rights trhing with Rosa Parks was fought over he sitting in front. She was tired but it formed a way for them to fight for freedom anyway.

Same bus but only in the back actually. Was whole reason the civil rights trhing with Rosa Parks was fought over he sitting in front. She was tired but it formed a way for them to fight for freedom anyway.
Although of that the US has indeed a better record than most countries. But that doesn´t mean that everything was right. And probably having open voting wasn´t that great either. Obviously the problem with it was seen and therefore there is secret balloting.
Also the historic constituition of the US didn´t include human rights (explicitly) since it was thought that having them in the state constituitions is enough. That was changed with the amendments however.
I´m not a fan of glorification of history.
But in that respect the US is rivaling mainly with France which has also a great tradition of self-glorification. Probably even more. Although the past was not always that ideal as the self-glorification suggests.

Although of that the US has indeed a better record than most countries.

Really? Can you give examples of countries that had worse records? I certainly don't believe the US was the worst offender, but I wouldn't place it as above average pre-the 1960s.

Really? Can you give examples of countries that had worse records? I certainly don't believe the US was the worst offender, but I wouldn't place it as above average pre-the 1960s.
North Korea, China when communist, Italy under Mussolia, and maybe a few more.

A draft is an usable system in order to serve the personal needs of the military.

NO. It is not. Conscription never really worked. Any professional military person will tell you that. Conscription is inherintly unfair. To use the example of the US, approximately 1.6 million males reach the "draft threshhold" of 18 every year. That number doubles to 3.2million, if you want to draft females. The military simply does not need that many people every year, so a system of selection must be used. This leads to inherent unfairness and discontent.
Conscription ultimately brings unmotivated and un-professional people to a task requiring a high degree of both motivation and skill. Modern warfare has repeatedly been shown to be best served by a professional military.
Furthermore, the vast majority of US voters and military personnel oppose conscription.

The Draft and Why it Won't Work in Peacetime (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs1999\draft%20and%20why.htm&search=draft%20never)

France was the first country in modern times who introduced it during the revolutionary wars in the 1790s. It was abolished in 2000 actually. Many European countries are still using it.

Several European nations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1414033.stm) have either ended conscription, are actively moving away from it, or are considering such moves. The UK, France, Italy*, and the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal have all ended conscription. (*Italy pasased a bill ending conscription in 2001, IIRC, but it takes effect in 2006). Greece and Austria are seriously considering ending it. Germany, Switzerland, and Scandanavia still plan to maintain conscription, but they all have particular reasons for doing so. And even then there is opposition.

Given the engagement of the US in the world it could make sense to reestablish it to get enough personal.
BTW, usually the draft is of course only for the male population. Israel is an exception of that. It has it for both males and females.

Sorry to deflate your balloon, but The Draft Is Really, Really Dead and Gone (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\200459.htm&search=draft%20never). The only reason it is even being mentioned is that a few politicians find it to be a useful headline grabber among the general populace who are ignorant of military reality today.

The draft is dead and gone. Get over it.

North Korea, China when communist, Italy under Mussolia, and maybe a few more.

Three examples and "maybe a few more" do not constitute enough to declare that the US has a "better record than most countries".

Seeing as my eyesight is so bad I can't be forced into a draft I have no problem with it. Its great to be almost legally blind lol

Same here, with a heaping dose of asthma to boot, not to mention that I&m now beyond the legal age (which ought to put a hole in the arguments I've seen - not in this particular thread, but in others - that those ineligible for the draft tend to support it.)

if there is no draft, and not enough soldiers to serve in iraq, then where will the soldiers come from? if we get as deep into iraq as we did in vietnam, we're going to be short staffed. whats the solution if it aint a draft?

Really? Can you give examples of countries that had worse records? I certainly don't believe the US was the worst offender, but I wouldn't place it as above average pre-the 1960s.
Japan, Germany, Russia, Communists China, Turkey (genocide on the Armenians during World War I: 2 million deaths), Yugoslavia, Italy (fascists), Spain (Franco). Well: France had Napoleon who tried to conquor all of Europe. Than there was the Bourbons. Then the second republic (1848-53)and than a second Napoleon (his cousin) up until the third republic in 1870/71.

That limits the draft to members of Congress then, if I understand your wacky US political system correctly, yes? And that the last time the draft would have been applied would have been following the declaration of war on Romania?
sorry, should have been more specific in my phrasing: i was using "vote" in the loose context, not in terms of the actual formal votes that lead to a declaration of war. personally, i think anybody who will be fighting in or paying for a war should be allowed to directly vote about whether or not to undertake that war, but that's a whole other debate about the American legal system :).

NO. It is not. Conscription never really worked. Any professional military person will tell you that. Conscription is inherintly unfair. To use the example of the US, approximately 1.6 million males reach the "draft threshhold" of 18 every year. That number doubles to 3.2million, if you want to draft females. The military simply does not need that many people every year, so a system of selection must be used. This leads to inherent unfairness and discontent.
Conscription ultimately brings unmotivated and un-professional people to a task requiring a high degree of both motivation and skill. Modern warfare has repeatedly been shown to be best served by a professional military.
Furthermore, the vast majority of US voters and military personnel oppose conscription.
Opinions can change. BTW, I of course only speak of males. I´m not a fan of conscription either. But you don´t need to conscript all. You can chose those you need. The others could be used for homeland security or for a civil service (social service, careing for disabled or the elderly). A country like Germany has such a system.
With such a system the military can also get more of the people it wants and less from the uneducated class.
So a draft system is actually probably less expansive than a volunteer army.
And regarding unfairness. The world is unfair. But countries need to defend themself. And to secure the Middle East more troups are needed than currently are presented, especially if other countries are going to need to be secured as well. Doing that with a volunteer army may get too expansive and it may get difficult to get enough personal for that.

"Germany, Switzerland, and Scandanavia still plan to maintain conscription, but they all have particular reasons for doing so. And even then there is opposition."
As a person who is from Old Europe I can tell you that none of those countries will move away from the draft in the foreseable future.
The others have decided that before 9/11 because they fought that now an era of peace and prosperity would begin an military would not - or at least only in a small portion - needed. It isn´t true though.
Spain has considerable problems with its volunteer army. It doesn´t get enough recruts and it is much more expansive. Well, probably patriotism is higher in the US but on the other hand: the demands are growing. Is the supply growing fast enough as well? I think it is no wonder that today the reestablishment of the draft is under discussion among defense politicians in the US.

if there is no draft, and not enough soldiers to serve in iraq, then where will the soldiers come from? if we get as deep into iraq as we did in vietnam, we're going to be short staffed. whats the solution if it aint a draft?

Several different options:
1) Actually start paying a competitive salary to attract suffiucient qulified people.
2) Scale back on military actions to a level we can handle.
3) Conduct actions under a different set of priorities.
4) Conduct actions under a looser set of restrictions.

#1 is the best option we have, having already committed forces. However, it is expensive and means that we need to scale back on othe expenditures or increase revenue.
#2 would have been an advisable option 18 months ago. It is a poor option now, but probably the most likely one.
# 3 is similar to #2. We won't achieve our stated goals.
#4 is probably the worst option. it would most likely mean winning the current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through brurtal and wide application of force. We'd win the local action, but loose at the grand strategic-diplomatic level. (Note this option may include the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons against such targets as Falluja.)

Japan, Germany, Russia, Communists China, Turkey (genocide on the Armenians during World War I: 2 million deaths), Yugoslavia, Italy (fascists), Spain (Franco). Well: France had Napoleon who tried to conquor all of Europe. Than there was the Bourbons. Then the second republic (1848-53)and than a second Napoleon (his cousin) up until the third republic in 1870/71.

I can't argue with your examples here, but I was reading the initial poster's claim as refering to the C20th (although there is no evidence that this is what he meant), otherwise we would probably have to take into account the treatment of the native americans by the US in the C19th, which would hardly be a positive mark for the USA.

personally, i think anybody who will be fighting in or paying for a war should be allowed to directly vote about whether or not to undertake that war, but that's a whole other debate about the American legal system :).

Would this mean that any people who are tax-exempt and are not going to be fighting don't get a vote?

Germany, Switzerland, and Scandanavia still plan to maintain conscription, but they all have particular reasons for doing so. And even then there is opposition.
As a person who is from Old Europe I can tell you that none of those countries will move away from the draft in the foreseable future.

Like I said they have their particular reasons for doing so. As I understand it, Germany sees a conscript army as a preventative against the abuses of WWII reoccurring. Switzerland and Scandinavia operate under a defensive statategy. And in all of those countries there are alternative forms of service available.

The others have decided that before 9/11 because they fought that now an era of peace and prosperity would begin an military would not - or at least only in a small portion - needed. It isn´t true though.
Spain has considerable problems with its volunteer army. It doesn´t get enough recruts and it is much more expansive.

Yes, Spain is having difficulties, but really they are something of an exception.

Well, probably patriotism is higher in the US but on the other hand: the demands are growing. Is the supply growing fast enough as well? I think it is no wonder that today the reestablishment of the draft is under discussion among defense politicians in the US.

Again, the conscription bills that have been floated in the US are aimed at scare mongering and headlines, and not at actually reestablishing conscription.

what i heard

Several different options:
1) Actually start paying a competitive salary to attract suffiucient qulified people. so when i asked what we would do if we didnt have enough volunteers, you answered hire more volunteers?
[/quote]

2) Scale back on military actions to a level we can handle. by this did you mean weaken our stance in places like korea and the balkans or did you mean we just shouldnt get into the situation in the first place? to the former i say iraq isnt worth it. to the latter i say the us has no control over how bad it gets.


3) Conduct actions under a different set of priorities.
or pull out.. im not really sure thats a good idea, but its probably the best one.

4) Conduct actions under a looser set of restrictions.



or nuke them?!?! or burn the cities to the ground? um, maybe i have just to much faith in the people, but im pretty sure pulling out the nukes or slaughtering civilians will bring about as many protests as a draft would.


you went on to say none of the actions work, so i guess its back to the draft being a viable action.

You support the draft?

I would support the draft provided it were equal. I believe college should be a deferrment and I believe having children should be a deferrment. However, I also believe men and women should be equally drafted and, as well, placed in combat positions.

I have not read the bill which is the topic of this thread, so I cannot discuss it with authority.

Several different options:
1) Actually start paying a competitive salary to attract suffiucient qulified <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a>.
2) Scale back on military actions to a level we can handle.
3) Conduct actions under a different set of priorities.
4) Conduct actions under a looser set of restrictions.
#1 is the best option we have, having already committed forces. However, it is expensive and means that we need to scale back on othe expenditures or increase revenue.
#2 would have been an advisable option 18 months ago. It is a poor option now, but probably the most likely one.
# 3 is similar to #2. We won't achieve our stated goals.
#4 is probably the worst option. it would most likely mean winning the current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through brurtal and wide application of force. We'd win the local action, but loose at the grand strategic-diplomatic level. (Note this option may include the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons against such targets as Falluja.)
You summarize the dillema very well. And the Iran problem gets more and more imminent. So, I don´t think that Iran backs down. There are now two options: a North Korea scenario (where it is already too late for a preventive strike) or a preventive strike.
And then you need to secure Iran as well.
So: Where do you get the troops for that?

Like I said they have their particular reasons for doing so. As I understand it, Germany sees a conscript army as a preventative against the abuses of WWII reoccurring..
That is right. And I see this argument as nonsense. After all: the army of the Third Reich was a draft army as well from 1935-45.
But there also other reasons for that. Getting the wanted personal, especially the more qualified people who would normally not go to the military.
And of course in order to get enough personal for it.
Aside of the civil service. It would just be too expensive to do without it. Than Germany would need to spent much more than 1,4% of its GDP for defense.

Switzerland and Scandinavia operate under a defensive statategy. And in all of those countries there are alternative forms of service available. ..
That is the case for all of those countries. The US could also offer an alternative form of service.




Yes, Spain is having difficulties, but really they are something of an exception. ..
I don´t think so. The same problem would occur in the other draft countries if they would get rid of it.


Again, the conscription bills that have been floated in the US are aimed at scare mongering and headlines, and not at actually reestablishing conscription.
Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are not scare-mongering, they are realities. The issue is going to remain, especially if the US continues with its new defense strategy.

what i heard is not necessariuly what I said.



Several different options:
1) Actually start paying a competitive salary to attract suffiucient qulified people.
so when i asked what we would do if we didnt have enough volunteers, you answered hire more volunteers?

Exactly. There are a number of reasons why we don't have sufficient forces: 1 - Congress has not approved sufficient forces.
2 - The DOD is focused on buying un-necessary high tech gadgets as opposed to raising troop levels.
3 - The Bush administration was convinced by the "Jedi Knight" facton in the DOD that a high tech approach would be sufficient.
4 - Military doctrine over the last decade and a half has ignored the likely operations we should have been concentrating on (places like Iraq and Afghanistan). We went from a strategy of "win 1 major war and wage a holding action in a regional war", to "win 2 regional wars", to "win 1 regional war and wage a holding action in another war", decreasing actual available forces at each step.
5 - We simply don't pay enough to retain the needed people. In critical skill areas, it is a common pattern for people to join the military, learn a critical skill, practice it for a few years, and then move on to private industry, where they can make more money. If the military could pay a competative wage, they could retain these people instead of having to hire civilian contractors.



2) Scale back on military actions to a level we can handle. by this did you mean weaken our stance in places like korea and the balkans or did you mean we just shouldnt get into the situation in the first place? to the former i say iraq isnt worth it. to the latter i say the us has no control over how bad it gets.

Not exactly. We are currently over stretched. Wer should have had 4-600,000 troops in Iraq initially (this would be about equal to the numbers of troops in the Balkans, on a per-capita basis, that were needed to establish the degree of peace there now). Due to poor planning, diplomatic fumbling, and the factors outlined above, we were unable to do so. If we cannot come up with the forces, we must be careful not to overstretch what we have available.

I agree that we should not have been in Iraq. We didn't put sufficient forces in Afghanistan, and then pulled out resources, resulting in increased destabilization. The Balkans should be a European problem. Korea is a sticky one, but it may well be a good idea to reduce troops there as well.




Conduct actions under a different set of priorities.
or pull out.. im not really sure thats a good idea, but its probably the best one.

Conducting actions under different priorities doesn't necessarily mean pulling out. It means we need to change our strategic goals to fit the tools available. If we can't establish a pluralistic, monolithic, friendly Iraq with the forces available, then we need to reconsider the goal. we might want to settle for a friendly dictator, for example, or a divided Iraq with spheres of influance.
Conduct actions under a looser set of restrictions.
or nuke them?!?! or burn the cities to the ground? um, maybe i have just to much faith in the people, but im pretty sure pulling out the nukes or slaughtering civilians will bring about as many protests as a draft would.

I didn't say that it would necessarily mean use of nuclear weapons, only that that might be one means of solving the problem of not having sufficient forces to attain our stated goal. And note that I pointed out it was the worst option, due to the negative backlash involved.


you went on to say none of the actions work, so i guess its back to the draft being a viable action.
:confused: I said nothing of the sort. Each of the options works as a solution to the problem of insufficient forces. Reinitiating conscruption does not. The first option would achieve the stated goals of current military operations. The second and third options, which are likely to be the ones chosen by the government (regardless of who wins in November) would involve a compromise in regards to the goals. The final option would achieve the goals while inviting larger problems.

Overall, the US must decide if it wishes to achieve the goals set out for it by the current leadership (not just Bush) and how much it is willing to spend.

Remember your original question was:
if there is no draft, and not enough soldiers to serve in iraq, then where will the soldiers come from? if we get as deep into iraq as we did in vietnam, we're going to be short staffed. whats the solution if it aint a draft?

Since the draft is not going to be reinstated, the above options are the current choices.

I must say that we have been poorly served by leadership (again not limited to Bush) which has gotten us into this position.

Honestly, I think that a draft would do a whole load of good to the American youngsters. Having to sweat and take unconditional orders for, lets say a year, would, in my opinion, let some steam out of some quite swollen heads. And maybe the warmongering would die down when the kids of those who decide aobut war and peace were in the front lines.

Just my 2 cents.

The more I consider it, the better I like a draft.

The conservatives would enroll as they always have, and the winey liberal pansies would run off to Canada or France and hide.

Drafting our younguns would be a bummer, but if it gets rid of the WLPs then..

LETS ROLL!

i support drafting any and all persons who vote to undertake a war.

So Bush would be out there fighting? I like this theory. Perhaps if this ever does become a law, pretzels shouldn't be served in the military cafeterias

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer? I'd also like to point out that this is a sign of Democrats actually supporting the war by showing their strength in resolve to let their children go fight. The Republicons squashed that bill faster than a tick on a smell hound. Go figure.

*coff*
I just KNOW you are joking about that part I have bolded. You must be joking. Baghdad Jim McDermott supporting the war???? Charles Rangel, who practically admitted to race-baiting when he came up with this bill??

You can NOT be serious.

The more I consider it, the better I like a draft.

The conservatives would enroll as they always have, and the winey liberal pansies would run off to Canada or France and hide.

Drafting our younguns would be a bummer, but if it gets rid of the WLPs then..

LETS ROLL!

Look at the two men getting the most coverage in the country right now. Kerry served his country. Bush was exempt from the draft because his daddy had connections, and all he had to worry his pretty little head about was showing up at the national guard. There isn't even proof he did that!

"If the sons of bitches who declared war had to go and fight it, there would be world peace."
-My grandfather, World War II Air Force Pilot

When I was serving, just about everyone I knew who served with me was a Democrat. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but we came out in droves to vote Clinton into office twice.

In election 2000, if you may recall, many of the military votes weren't counted because the postage date on the ballot was after the deadline. So we'll never know how those thousands of people voted.

We'll see what happens this year.
Are you positively sure about that? The proof is in the pudding...the number of registered Republicans far exceeds the number of Dims in the military. In fact, in my days in the service, I knew exactly ONE guy who voted for DemocRATS, and he did it only because it was a family tradition (his words.)

Seeing as my eyesight is so bad I can't be forced into a draft I have no problem with it. Its great to be almost legally blind lol
Actually, theres a funny story about that. My uncle, who was almost legally blind too, was drafted for 'Nam.

Assuming that nothing has changed since then, see you in Iraq mate.

Honestly, I think that a draft would do a whole load of good to the American youngsters. Having to sweat and take unconditional orders for, lets say a year, would, in my opinion, let some steam out of some quite swollen heads. And maybe the warmongering would die down when the kids of those who decide aobut war and peace were in the front lines.

Just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately that would essentially make the military a babysitting service. If you want to build character, send your kids to military school, Outward Bound, a boot camp (http://www.bootcampsforteens.com/), or similar programs. Let the military do it's job in a professional fashion. Don't force them to work with people who do not want to be there.

Exactly. There are a number of reasons why we don't have sufficient forces: 1 - Congress has not approved sufficient forces.
2 - The DOD is focused on buying un-necessary high tech gadgets as opposed to raising troop levels.
3 - The Bush administration was convinced by the "Jedi Knight" facton in the DOD that a high tech approach would be sufficient.
4 - Military doctrine over the last decade and a half has ignored the likely operations we should have been concentrating on (places like Iraq and Afghanistan). We went from a strategy of "win 1 major war and wage a holding action in a regional war", to "win 2 regional wars", to "win 1 regional war and wage a holding action in another war", decreasing actual available forces at each step.
5 - We simply don't pay enough to retain the needed people. In critical skill areas, it is a common pattern for people to join the military, learn a critical skill, practice it for a few years, and then move on to private industry, where they can make more money. If the military could pay a competative wage, they could retain these people instead of having to hire civilian contractors..
And that would costs much, much more money. With 400 billion Dollar defense budget it can´t be argued that this budget is small. Where do you want to take the money from? With a draft that would be cheaper.




Not exactly. We are currently over stretched. Wer should have had 4-600,000 troops in Iraq initially (this would be about equal to the numbers of troops in the Balkans, on a per-capita basis, that were needed to establish the degree of peace there now). Due to poor planning, diplomatic fumbling, and the factors outlined above, we were unable to do so. If we cannot come up with the forces, we must be careful not to overstretch what we have available. ..
And where do you want to get the troops from? Especially if Iran needs to be secured this question is going to come up again.

I agree that we should not have been in Iraq. We didn't put sufficient forces in Afghanistan, and then pulled out resources, resulting in increased destabilization. The Balkans should be a European problem. Korea is a sticky one, but it may well be a good idea to reduce troops there as well. ..
That is unrealistic given the situation in North Korea.
And the US troop presence on the Balkans is not that high anyway. But the US actually needs to deploy troops to Eastern Europe to give a reward to the countries of the "coalition of the willing". An US troop presence - as a security assurance against Russia - was a very important factor for their decision to support the US. So, the overall numbers of troops in Europe can´t be reduced (only the stationing points - a move of some troops from the west to Eastern Europe). Otherwise the US may loose support from that countries.



Conducting actions under different priorities doesn't necessarily mean pulling out. It means we need to change our strategic goals to fit the tools available. If we can't establish a pluralistic, monolithic, friendly Iraq with the forces available, then we need to reconsider the goal. we might want to settle for a friendly dictator, for example, or a divided Iraq with spheres of influance. ..
The problem with that friendly dictator is that the US has dissolved the Iraqi military. A friendly dictator may have been able to recruit from their ranks and he could have used them as his power base. Given the diverse structure of Iraq (shiite, sunni, kurds) any dictator would repress one group or the other. The most likely concept would either to make a deal with the shiites (however they may be too close to Iraq) or the sunni Arabs - which would of course be negative for the shiites. The Kurds would be another problem. However Turkey could take care of them as they used to do during the 90s.
The current approach tries to go for a compromise between the main groups of Iraq and their political factions. Whether that is possible remains to be seen.
On the other hand a stronger Iran could play a stabilising role in Iraq especially regarding the shiite population. Iran is becoming more and more a stronger player. Potentially it is the strongest country on the Gulf region.
The options are clear actually. Either the US reaches a compromise with it - which would over the passage of time also led to a more stable Iraq - or it doesn´t reach a compromise. The latter seems to be more likely. In that case we either see a preventive strike against Iran or - if Iran has gotten to far with its nuclear program (who knows it for shure?) a North-Korea scenario with Iraq as partly willing and partly unwilling ally of the US.

And that would costs much, much more money. With 400 billion Dollar defense budget it can´t be argued that this budget is small. Where do you want to take the money from? With a draft that would be cheaper.

That was pretty much the whole point of that part of my post. To recap, the DoD is spending funds on unecessary items (largely cold war relics). This is largely due to the current administration's favoring the "Jedi knioght" faction of the DoD. Get rid of the un-needed programs (military and other), and there will be more than enough funding for what we actually need.

And where do you want to get the troops from? Especially if Iran needs to be secured this question is going to come up again.

The people are there. The army has actually had to raise it's standards and functionally turn people away, because of congresses caps. The money is there. It simply needs to be spent correctly.

That is unrealistic given the situation in North Korea.
And the US troop presence on the Balkans is not that high anyway. But the US actually needs to deploy troops to Eastern Europe to give a reward to the countries of the "coalition of the willing". An US troop presence - as a security assurance against Russia - was a very important factor for their decision to support the US. So, the overall numbers of troops in Europe can´t be reduced (only the stationing points - a move of some troops from the west to Eastern Europe). Otherwise the US may loose support from that countries.

I said Korea was sticky. I didn't say pull out, but reduce. As far as Europe goes, the EU really needs to be in charge there, not the US.


The problem with that friendly dictator is that the US has dissolved the Iraqi military. A friendly dictator may have been able to recruit from their ranks and he could have used them as his power base. Given the diverse structure of Iraq (shiite, sunni, kurds) any dictator would repress one group or the other. The most likely concept would either to make a deal with the shiites (however they may be too close to Iraq) or the sunni Arabs - which would of course be negative for the shiites. The Kurds would be another problem. However Turkey could take care of them as they used to do during the 90s.
The current approach tries to go for a compromise between the main groups of Iraq and their political factions. Whether that is possible remains to be seen.
On the other hand a stronger Iran could play a stabilising role in Iraq especially regarding the shiite population. Iran is becoming more and more a stronger player. Potentially it is the strongest country on the Gulf region.
The options are clear actually. Either the US reaches a compromise with it - which would over the passage of time also led to a more stable Iraq - or it doesn´t reach a compromise. The latter seems to be more likely. In that case we either see a preventive strike against Iran or - if Iran has gotten to far with its nuclear program (who knows it for shure?) a North-Korea scenario with Iraq as partly willing and partly unwilling ally of the US.

1) We need to reasses our goals to meet what we can currently achieve.
2) The whole of US foreign policy needs a serious rethink.
Would you agree

Gotta follow this up:

Are you positively sure about that? The proof is in the pudding...the number of registered Republicans far exceeds the number of Dims in the military. In fact, in my days in the service, I knew exactly ONE guy who voted for DemocRATS, and he did it only because it was a family tradition (his words.)

Perhaps its a service thing? Mabye there's more Dem's in one service or the other? Or overseas. Or perhaps theres just some wierd play with random chance. There are Democrat's in the military, I do know that... perhaps they don't want to speak up in fear of something? In an all volunteer military though, that ratio should be natural, as more conservatives might see the military as the way to go. I know I think its a good option. Now if only I can get back into ROTC... :)

Anywho, my two cents. Oh, and for future reference, Panhandila, try not to namecall. Its kinda base, and lower's your credability. :)

Most of us already served or are currently serving in the military.

That bill was introduced in order to force the wealthy elite Republicons, who started this whole mess in Iraq, to get their kids to serve. Or did you imagine Jenna and Barbara were going to just volunteer? I'd also like to point out that this is a sign of Democrats actually supporting the war by showing their strength in resolve to let their children go fight. The Republicons squashed that bill faster than a tick on a smell hound. Go figure.

*coff*

Just a nit pick. Nowadays, I don't think they would allow a child of the president to fight.

If he was captured......

Repubs will probably squash it quick because the many "patriots" supporting the war will probably go "Wait a minute my (whatever) has to join up?!?!?!"

The Demos sponsoring the bill are probably motived more by political gain then patriotism as it will turn peoples attitudes against the wars if it directly affected them(ie child having to join).

If the shrub gets elected again, you will see the draft as a lameduck president has nothing to loose.....

Oh, and for future reference, Panhandila, try not to namecall. Its kinda base, and lower's your credability. :)

If he did that then he would have not much to say! ;)

Gotta follow this up:



Perhaps its a service thing? Mabye there's more Dem's in one service or the other? Or overseas. Or perhaps theres just some wierd play with random chance. There are Democrat's in the military, I do know that... perhaps they don't want to speak up in fear of something? In an all volunteer military though, that ratio should be natural, as more conservatives might see the military as the way to go. I know I think its a good option. Now if only I can get back into ROTC... :)

Anywho, my two cents. Oh, and for future reference, Panhandila, try not to namecall. Its kinda base, and lower's your credability. :)
Nope, most sources verify that the military vote is consistiently Republican.

Ya small-brained wiper of other peoples bottoms! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of ELDERBERRY! I Blow my nose at you.
(Insults used by the French - compliments of Monty Python)

I can guarantee that the Democrats do not want me in the US Army.

Personally, I think that it would do a great many members of this board a great deal of good to serve a four-year hitch in the armed forces.

That was pretty much the whole point of that part of my post. To recap, the DoD is spending funds on unecessary items (largely cold war relics). This is largely due to the current administration's favoring the "Jedi knioght" faction of the DoD. Get rid of the un-needed programs (military and other), and there will be more than enough funding for what we actually need.
What do you mean with unneeded programs? NMD? Space programs?What?

I said Korea was sticky. I didn't say pull out, but reduce. As far as Europe goes, the EU really needs to be in charge there, not the US. .
The problem with Europe is that it was not able to formulate a consistent policy towards the Balkans (though it isn´t divided on that anymore there still isn´t a realistic policy either) and that it is in general not having a common foreign and security strategy.
And on the other hand. Does the United States want that really? After all an only-european mission could be a push towards such a consistency.
A more divided Europe is after all a smaller factor in world politicis while a more united would be a bigger factor.





1) We need to reasses our goals to meet what we can currently achieve.
2) The whole of US foreign policy needs a serious rethink.
Would you agree
I think there needs to be an either-or decision.
Either the US continues with its new national security strategy (of 2002). But then it has to commit enough resources for it. Like you said: 4-600,000 to Iraq and not less than half of (even) the lower number). At least that number (I´m shure much more) would be needed for Iran. In such a situation only a draft would make sense. The policy of trying to "draft" others (coalition of the willing) wasn´t that successful (if we exclude Britain in that respect). In this case the United States has even to pay other countries for their deployments (like in the case of Poland: but also to the Ukraine or Mongolia and to others).
In the case of Iran it would certainly even harder to form a coalition of the willing.
At the end of the day the US has to take almost the entire burden if it acts in the framework of a "coalition of the willing".
If that is the policy however one needs at least to draw the consequence by committing enough troops. And if I think about the potential of securing Iran seriously I simply doubt that this could be done without serious changes in the military structure (which may include a draft).
With such a strategy of preventive strikes the United States may be able to eliminate potential or real enemies before they could grow stronger. By doing so it could establish a "Pax Americana" (like the Pax Romana) in the region. But for that it needs troops and the willingness to sent enough troops to erradicated the resistence.
The main opinion in Europe is that a new order can´t be only created via the use of force. Well, historic experiences show other examples. But for such a new order it needs the will and the decisivness to enforce it and to stay as long as it takes till it is stabilized.
This strategy requires the will to suffer casualties (in its own ranks). That is indeed the factor which at the end caused the "defeat" of the US in Vietnam. The US didn´t loose a single battle. But the number of casualties and certain ugly pictures led to the rise of opposition in the US against the war. Some actually argue that the draft army was the reason for the "defeat" in Vietnam. They argue that the draft broadened the protest in the US and that it would not have happened if it been only a proffesional army.
That is probably an argument against the draft - For some however it would be an argument for it. They argue that democratic governments are more cautious to sent their troops if it is a draft army since it binds the "ordinary" population and the political class and the military closer to each other.
I think, there is a point in that. And that would indeed speak against the draft from the perspective of the political planners. On the other hand continuing with that strategy may require more resources for future missions. It could become a necessity if it is decided to continue that strategy and to act consequently (which would mean to go against Iran now). It doesn´t need to be stressed that the US would rely mainly on Britain and on an Anglo-Saxon alliance for real support following this concept and that "Old Europe" is likely to stay neutral (if Iran doesn´t commit an hostile act first).

The other concept would be to try to reconcile with "Old Europe" and to try to bind it into the stabilisation of Iraq.
Currently it is playing a major role on the Balkans (Bosnia, Kosovo) and Afghanistan.
It would certainly be very difficult to bind them (us) in.
But from question from depth relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, the training of new Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi police it could - and very likely would - play a much bigger role today. If it is done under the umbrella of NATO.
And if we speak about military contributions Turkey could play a major role. It has the biggest military within Nato (excpet the US). But in order to put Turkey in it would be necessary to "betrayl" the Kurds. Well: though choice.

I consider it more likely that the US continues to follow its new strategy. It is easier - diplomatically.
If it - at least - would be done with determination it is not impossible that it may work. I would prefer the US over every other country to dominate the world. It wouldn´t make the US more popular (Rome wasn´t popular outside of its border and partly even within it, either).
But if it works the world would be a better place.
One thing however is for shure. It can´t work if not enough ressources and manpower are spent for a mission.

When I was serving, just about everyone I knew who served with me was a Democrat. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but we came out in droves to vote Clinton into office twice.

In election 2000, if you may recall, many of the military votes weren't counted because the postage date on the ballot was after the deadline. So we'll never know how those thousands of people voted.

We'll see what happens this year.

Your evidence is purely antectodal, and Clinton was poison for the military so you must be stupid as well.

And in the 20 years I served... the vast majority were Republicans. I hate to make this statement, as it will be used against me but the only Democrats I knew were black. When I asked them why, the only answer they could give me was "because I've always been".
\
The vast majority still are Republicans. As for the draft, I am a Captain in the US Army, and I would hate it. People who do not want to be in, should not be in, they mostly would be incompetent anyway even if forced.

Your evidence is purely antectodal, and Clinton was poison for the military so you must be stupid as well.
And yet Bush hasn't done anything good to the military and we still beat Iraq and afganistan?
Fox Clinton wasn't "poison" Reagon hurt the military far more. Cut many branches of it in fact.

And yet Bush hasn't done anything good to the military and we still beat Iraq and afganistan?
Fox Clinton wasn't "poison" Reagon hurt the military far more. Cut many branches of it in fact.

Actually from my own personal experience some notes..
Clinton underfunded the military..we were stretched to the maximum under him. Parts were in extremely short supply. There were whole USAF squadrons where only 3 planes were able to fly.
Reagan built up the military,massively beefed up spending to counter the Sov Union, and eventually force them back from the table. Most of what we have now, is still remaining from him. There were never ANY "branches" of the military cut, under any president.

\
The vast majority still are Republicans. As for the draft, I am a Captain in the US Army, and I would hate it. People who do not want to be in, should not be in, they mostly would be incompetent anyway even if forced.

Oops, I better stop going toe to toe with you. Or at least stay anonymous... The services typically fare better under Republican leadership with pay, benefits and other support. I'm a registered Republican (which doesn't stop me from voting Democrat, by the way) and recently enlisted in the US Army. Thank God for basic training which takes the self-righteous 18-year old punk down to a functional level. I couldn't image if none of them wanted to be there at all. Who would feel safe in a platoon full of men trying to run away instead of doing their jobs?

Oops, I better stop going toe to toe with you. Or at least stay anonymous... The services typically fare better under Republican leadership with pay, benefits and other support. I'm a registered Republican (which doesn't stop me from voting Democrat, by the way) and recently enlisted in the US Army. Thank God for basic training which takes the self-righteous 18-year old punk down to a functional level. I couldn't image if none of them wanted to be there at all. Who would feel safe in a platoon full of men trying to run away instead of doing their jobs?

First I wish you luck in your enlistment. Second, however heated I seem, I am not an ass :) And by the way, while being a registered Republican myself, I also do on occasion vote for a Democrat. ;)

First I wish you luck in your enlistment. Second, however heated I seem, I am not an ass :) And by the way, while being a registered Republican myself, I also do on occasion vote for a Democrat. ;)
I'm sure... :) The voting Democrat part wasn't for you. Some extremists just have it in their heads that registered Republicans still use the party lever to vote.

If he did that then he would have not much to say! ;)
Look who's talking. Using such a rule would eliminate quite a few Libs.

Personally, I think that it would do a great many members of this board a great deal of good to serve a four-year hitch in the armed forces.
Indeed. However, how many would actually make it through the basic training?

Oops, I better stop going toe to toe with you. Or at least stay anonymous... The services typically fare better under Republican leadership with pay, benefits and other support. I'm a registered Republican (which doesn't stop me from voting Democrat, by the way) and recently enlisted in the US Army. Thank God for basic training which takes the self-righteous 18-year old punk down to a functional level. I couldn't image if none of them wanted to be there at all. Who would feel safe in a platoon full of men trying to run away instead of doing their jobs?
We can ask the French who survived WWII.

OUCH! Below the "ceinture"