NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen the idea of a possible draft shot down over and over again.

What would happen if there was another terrorist attack? Two wars were started over the last one, so I would say that if there was another attack, we would need a draft to respond the same way we did to the last attack.

Would this administration or any administration reinstate the draft if this happened? Would it have sufficient public support?

Probably if we invaded the correct country...

Which country? Saudi Arabia? Bush doesn't have the balls to take on his prime oil pusher.

Which country? Saudi Arabia? Bush doesn't have the balls to take on his prime oil pusher.

Iran, most likely. We won't invade Saudi Arabia, that will really harm our economy. We won't invade North Korea, Pakistan or any other nuclear nation. In fact, I seriously cannot blame Iran for rushing a nuclear program. That can actually guarantee their sovereignty.

Would this administration or any administration reinstate the draft if this happened? Would it have sufficient public support? applicable to US only

1, No and maybe. This administration wouldn't, about the only reason this administration would reinstate the draft would be in case of a general war when the need was for warm bodies instead of trained soldiers (something increasing uncommon as warfare becomes more technical) or an actual invasion. The idea of reinstating the draft has been arround for sometime, basically arguing that a volunteer military dispropotionately consists of the marginalized of society. An administration more concerned with equality of the military than the quality of the military might consider the draft, especially if it valued equal treatment of citizens to more important than the freedom of the citizens. So, while this administration won't have a draft some other sdministration might.
2. Public support is such an iffy concept, one cannot even guess without actually being in the situation. So much depends on how it is presented and all that, one officail saying the wrong thing at the wrong time could weaken public support, even in the case of invasion. Cannot say for sure, but I think the press would back an administration proposing a draft and that would help.

I have seen the idea of a possible draft shot down over and over again.

What would happen if there was another terrorist attack? Two wars were started over the last one, so I would say that if there was another attack, we would need a draft to respond the same way we did to the last attack.

Would this administration or any administration reinstate the draft if this happened? Would it have sufficient public support?


that sort of supposes that the military would be needed as opposed to law enforcement/intelligence. I don't see any nation/state risking that sort of confrontation with the U.S.

But let's suppose there is some form of state-supported terrorism. Do you think there will be a problem getting volunteers?

The idea of reinstating the draft has been arround for sometime, basically arguing that a volunteer military dispropotionately consists of the marginalized of society. An administration more concerned with equality of the military than the quality of the military might consider the draft, especially if it valued equal treatment of citizens to more important than the freedom of the citizen.
How does a draft lower the effectiveness of troops? If the drafted troops are trained the same way as those who volunteer, and held to the same standard, why would there be a problem?

Iran, most likely. We won't invade Saudi Arabia, that will really harm our economy. We won't invade North Korea, Pakistan or any other nuclear nation. In fact, I seriously cannot blame Iran for rushing a nuclear program. That can actually guarantee their sovereignty.
Yeah, but I'd much rather see us attacking Saudi Arabia. They are the main source of funding and Ideology for the terrorism we see among sunni muslims.

How does a draft lower the effectiveness of troops? If the drafted troops are trained the same way as those who volunteer, and held to the same standard, why would there be a problem?
Volunteer troops are trained over the course of years. Drafted troops would get months of training before being rotated in. Also volunteers _want_ to be there. They will do the job with more enthusiasm and attention to detail. Draftees will do anything they can to just go home.

that sort of supposes that the military would be needed as opposed to law enforcement/intelligence. I don't see any nation/state risking that sort of confrontation with the U.S.

But let's suppose there is some form of state-supported terrorism. Do you think there will be a problem getting volunteers?

The last terrorist attack led to two land invasions of foreign nations with one being unrelated to the actual attack, so we have set a precedent where state-sponsorship of terrorism is not a prerequisite to invasion.

Yeah, but I'd much rather see us attacking Saudi Arabia. They are the main source of funding and Ideology for the terrorism we see among sunni muslims.

I don't see military action there as neccessary at the moment. The Saudi Royal Family are beginning to see the fruits of their labor, mainly the terrorists are now after them. :p They are starting to clean house, but it may be too late.

The last terrorist attack led to two land invasions of foreign nations with one being unrelated to the actual attack, so we have set a precedent where state-sponsorship of terrorism is not a prerequisite to invasion.

That's not quite true. Intelligence data pointed to a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (although I don't recall anyone saying at the time there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11) and Bush has already adopted the doctrine of attacking any state that cooperated with Al Qaeda as if they were AQ.

Yeah, but I'd much rather see us attacking Saudi Arabia. They are the main source of funding and Ideology for the terrorism we see among sunni muslims.

Yeah, if the Taliban's harboring of terrorists was enough to spark a land invasion of Afghanistan, then there is no reason why we shouldn't be eradicating the House of Saud right now, instead of the insurgents in Iraq.

Yeah, if the Taliban's harboring of terrorists was enough to spark a land invasion of Afghanistan, then there is no reason why we shouldn't be eradicating the House of Saud right now, instead of the insurgents in Iraq.
Actually I'd rather eradicate the clerics.

That's not quite true. Intelligence data pointed to a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (although I don't recall anyone saying at the time there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11) and Bush has already adopted the doctrine of attacking any state that cooperated with Al Qaeda as if they were AQ.

The rush to war, ignoring of some intelligence, and manipulating of reports show that the link between AQ and Saddam was post decision justification.

After reading the PNAC neocon doctrine, learning that our intelligence was wrong on almost every instant, there is no doubt that we wanted Iraq no matter what their connection was.

there is no doubt that we wanted Iraq no matter what their connection was.

heh you'll get no argument from me on that ;)

Actually I'd rather eradicate the clerics.

The clerics are only fighting what they think are oppressors. The House of Saud uses their wealth to oppress their own people, support terrorism in Israel and the US, appease the clerics, and fool the American people. By removing them from power we show that we are fighting against oppressors and not against Islam. It would help our "war on terrorism" in two ways.

The clerics are only fighting what they think are oppressors. The House of Saud uses their wealth to oppress their own people, support terrorism in Israel and the US, appease the clerics, and fool the American people. By removing them from power we show that we are fighting against oppressors and not against Islam. It would help our "war on terrorism" in two ways.
It might just help establish a muslim theocracy that more aggressively tries to expand islam by conquering more territory. That would be my bet.

You know you have to sign up for the draft when your 18 or you could be put in jail?

Somthing like signing a card saying you able to be drafted and be put in the battlefield.

I just think that is the U.S. but maby other nations have that policly too?

Also can someone answer this question is the law where drivers born after 90' cant drive till there 18....just asking thanks!

It would be interesting, no matter what the cause, if the draft was reinstated. We would still have the draft dodgers, but women would probaly have go to. That means almost all of our young generation would be at risk. :rolleyes: Who knows what will happen. We'll just have to wait and see. Knowing my luck, They'll reinstate it when i'm at the "perfect" age. ugh :(

Would anyone on here dodge the draft? I would barring a major attack by another government. I would not support another Iraq, and would certainly not fight there.

It is ironic that in the post 9/11 environment, all we heard was that the terrorists hated us because we are free, and their goal was to take away our freedom. And it turns out that that was just rhetoric to allow the government to pass the patriot act, which limits our personal freedoms, and it could also be used to rally support for a draft which would be the ultimate symbol of lost freedom.

Would anyone on here dodge the draft? I would barring a major attack by another government. I would not support another Iraq, and would certainly not fight there.

It is ironic that in the post 9/11 environment, all we heard was that the terrorists hated us because we are free, and their goal was to take away our freedom. And it turns out that that was just rhetoric to allow the government to pass the patriot act, which limits our personal freedoms, and it could also be used to rally support for a draft which would be the ultimate symbol of lost freedom.
I wouldn't dodge the draft. I would even go to Iraq despite the fact that I think the war is unnecessary and pointless. If my country calls on me I must answer.