Actual statistics of donations from those that have served IN Iraq would be more interesting.
Guess this Iraqi vet didn't get the "Support Obama" word: http://www.youtube.com/weneedmccain
Time to bring back the draft?
- Thread starter bluegraytx
- Start date
- Status
Actual statistics of donations from those that have served IN Iraq would be more interesting.
Guess this Iraqi vet didn't get the "Support Obama" word: http://www.youtube.com/weneedmccain
a draft and freedom cant mix. You own you not the Govt. If you want a draft then deal with the fact that your country does not care about individual liberty.
Once you get passed that little hiccup......all sorts of possibilites for Govt open up
sorry boys and girls...the draft is not about "for love of country" its about lindividual freedom and ownership......on the most basic level.
Once you get passed that little hiccup......all sorts of possibilites for Govt open up
sorry boys and girls...the draft is not about "for love of country" its about lindividual freedom and ownership......on the most basic level.
Mixed feelings
While the idea of a draft is emotionaly satisfying when looking at many people ("teach them some respect for this country", etc.), I find the actuality repugnant. I would support a draft only when the actual survival of our nation is at stake. Not the survival of the status quo, or the survival of a particular politial program or agenda, but that of our nation as a soverign state.
The basic problem with a draft is 1) it is military slavery, and 2) it is politically organized and managed. And like everything else our politicians have a hand in, it gets screwed up and biased in favor of a select few.
If we let the military draft only those it wanted we would be better off, but only slightly, and we don't do that anyway. We draft (supposedly) everyone "fairly". We get good people, and we get gutter scrapings. And when the politicians get their way, we don't get "the best and brightest", we get those who didn't have the money or political influence to buy their way out.
The biggest objection to a draft comes from those of us who were alive the last time we had one, and who hated the horrible, stupid, and unfair manner in which it was run.
A draft violates the American principles of liberty and freedom that we make such a big deal about, and in effect says "It doesn't matter what we say about individual freemdom, under law the government owns you, and will use you as they see fit."
I volunteered at a time when people were still leaving the country to avoid the draft. I feel that service is the duty of the American citizen. Once. It is the payback for everything this country is and does for us, and is the proper choice of the responsible patriotic citizen. We should not have to get our soldiers, sailors and airmen dragged into service under threat of prison. And we do not. The volunteer service has been working for more than the past 30 years. We have enough men and women who proudly serve to defend this nation.
If we do not have the numbers in service to allow ambitious politicians to play their global "peacemaker" games to the level they desire, we should NOT consider adding to those numbers by using a draft.
I have no sympathy for the arguments about the politicians "sending our children off to die". Each and every one serving today is a volunteer, including both my own children. Generally they understand the responsibilities and the risks before they raise their hand, take the oath, and put on the uniform. And if they don't, they learn soon after.
How, where, and how many of the military are deployed is open to debate. That is one of the important strengths of our system. And those serving in the military do not have a voice in this, it is up to the rest of us to see that when this is done, it is what must be done, not just what some politician thinks ought to be done.
While the idea of a draft is emotionaly satisfying when looking at many people ("teach them some respect for this country", etc.), I find the actuality repugnant. I would support a draft only when the actual survival of our nation is at stake. Not the survival of the status quo, or the survival of a particular politial program or agenda, but that of our nation as a soverign state.
The basic problem with a draft is 1) it is military slavery, and 2) it is politically organized and managed. And like everything else our politicians have a hand in, it gets screwed up and biased in favor of a select few.
If we let the military draft only those it wanted we would be better off, but only slightly, and we don't do that anyway. We draft (supposedly) everyone "fairly". We get good people, and we get gutter scrapings. And when the politicians get their way, we don't get "the best and brightest", we get those who didn't have the money or political influence to buy their way out.
The biggest objection to a draft comes from those of us who were alive the last time we had one, and who hated the horrible, stupid, and unfair manner in which it was run.
A draft violates the American principles of liberty and freedom that we make such a big deal about, and in effect says "It doesn't matter what we say about individual freemdom, under law the government owns you, and will use you as they see fit."
I volunteered at a time when people were still leaving the country to avoid the draft. I feel that service is the duty of the American citizen. Once. It is the payback for everything this country is and does for us, and is the proper choice of the responsible patriotic citizen. We should not have to get our soldiers, sailors and airmen dragged into service under threat of prison. And we do not. The volunteer service has been working for more than the past 30 years. We have enough men and women who proudly serve to defend this nation.
If we do not have the numbers in service to allow ambitious politicians to play their global "peacemaker" games to the level they desire, we should NOT consider adding to those numbers by using a draft.
I have no sympathy for the arguments about the politicians "sending our children off to die". Each and every one serving today is a volunteer, including both my own children. Generally they understand the responsibilities and the risks before they raise their hand, take the oath, and put on the uniform. And if they don't, they learn soon after.
How, where, and how many of the military are deployed is open to debate. That is one of the important strengths of our system. And those serving in the military do not have a voice in this, it is up to the rest of us to see that when this is done, it is what must be done, not just what some politician thinks ought to be done.
There is no shortage of people wanting to play in the NFL and NBA, or star in movies, or become congress vermin. There is a shortage of good, qualified people for military service.
Before we bring back involuntary servitude, how about we pay our servicemen and women a decent wage.
Before we bring back involuntary servitude, how about we pay our servicemen and women a decent wage.
I think an equitable draft would be a good thing, equitable being the key word. When I was in the military, the general enlisted troops (at least those around me) were mostly people from either poorer urban areas or poorer rural areas. If there was a universal draft, the folks who make the decisions to use our troops would probably be more thoughtful about it if they were also sending off their own kids (or their neighbors' and friends' kids) to fight. Of course, our military personnel should be a little better compensated, pay-wise, GI Bill-wise, etc.
Last edited:
Citizen Carrier
New member
Again, what World War Two or Cold War level threat are we facing right now that would justify sending press gangs to the graduating classes of our nation's high schools?
Anyone?
What? Russia? Their population is shrinking almost exponentially. Low fertility rates, alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases.
China? They lack the ability to project military strength beyond their borders. Navy's a joke.
So that leaves...who?
And if you can't name such a threat to our existence, how do you justify bushwhacking all these 18-year-olds and forcing them to put their lives on hold for two or three years?
I'd like to hear it.
Anyone?
What? Russia? Their population is shrinking almost exponentially. Low fertility rates, alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases.
China? They lack the ability to project military strength beyond their borders. Navy's a joke.
So that leaves...who?
And if you can't name such a threat to our existence, how do you justify bushwhacking all these 18-year-olds and forcing them to put their lives on hold for two or three years?
I'd like to hear it.
Marko Kloos
New member
Interesting just how widely the doctrine of collectivism has taken over even the conservatives. Just wrap it in star-spangled bunting, play some patriotic music in the background, and suddenly the defenders of individual rights click their heels and start chanting "Community Uber Alles".
If you want to hear it, listen to your own president:
"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. " George W. Bush
Sounds kinda serious to me. Would he have said that if it wasn't true?
Hey, I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday.
I just think that our military should be used as sparingly as possible and, if one's own may get shot, one has a tendency to be a little less quick to send 'em off to war. I'm an honorably discharged veteran (frickin' proud of it, too!) and I don't like the fact that such a decision can be made that will personally cost everyone but the decision maker(s.) An equitable draft could change that.
I just think that our military should be used as sparingly as possible and, if one's own may get shot, one has a tendency to be a little less quick to send 'em off to war. I'm an honorably discharged veteran (frickin' proud of it, too!) and I don't like the fact that such a decision can be made that will personally cost everyone but the decision maker(s.) An equitable draft could change that.
mtlucas0311
New member
I keep reading posts that insist that our military is the "only choice" for the "poor" and people who aren't smart enough to go to college. I have to say that it's getting under my skin. My experience is that the military is filled with every type of person (to include ethnic background, family income, intelligence level etc.). For those that seem to buy into the stereotype found in many movies or the dribble coming out of some politicians mouth; I challenge you to re-evaluate your opinion.
I never felt as if I was surrounded by people of low intelligence or a financial situation that was so dire that they had to join the military to eat. Further, I will also say that the military provides several advantages to those who return to the civillian world. Most employers I've encountered are impressed to see military service on a resume' and a thousand bucks a month while you go to school (college or trade school) after you get out aint' bad.
I did a little checking about the background of service member before I wrote this, I believe the article to be written by qualified people and the sources thay cite seem reasonable. You can view it at
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda08-05.cfm
I never felt as if I was surrounded by people of low intelligence or a financial situation that was so dire that they had to join the military to eat. Further, I will also say that the military provides several advantages to those who return to the civillian world. Most employers I've encountered are impressed to see military service on a resume' and a thousand bucks a month while you go to school (college or trade school) after you get out aint' bad.
I did a little checking about the background of service member before I wrote this, I believe the article to be written by qualified people and the sources thay cite seem reasonable. You can view it at
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda08-05.cfm
I spoke of those around me. More specifically, in my company.
When I look at stats, I also look at who compiled them. When I see something from any place "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies...." or another place who says that they want to promote liberal policies, I take it all with a grain of salt. I like stats that are compiled by an actuary, not those compiled by those with an overriding agenda. I don't trust stats from any organization trying to promote anything.
Go here and see some stats that are the opposite of the Heritage Foundation's findings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html
So, like I said, I was commenting on those I served with.
mtlucas0311
New member
I wasn't really going after you comments, It was aimed at posts like #69. I'm not sure when you were in but I wouldn't try to discredit your observations. I think that there are a lot of misconceptions about the military and how it works. The one I run into most frequently is that people think everyone in the military is in the infantry. They just don't know that there is a huge amount of support that is dedicated to keeping the infantry going.
I agree with you about being careful when you read articles from organizations with an agenda, but if you look at the sources they cite, I feel that they are credible (defenselink.mil, census.gov, usma.edu) and I felt they wrote the article objectively. They seem to stick to data rather than personal sob stories like some reporters like to do, and they explain in detail how they compiled their data rather than sticking the "pentagon figures show" label on it.
I agree with you about being careful when you read articles from organizations with an agenda, but if you look at the sources they cite, I feel that they are credible (defenselink.mil, census.gov, usma.edu) and I felt they wrote the article objectively. They seem to stick to data rather than personal sob stories like some reporters like to do, and they explain in detail how they compiled their data rather than sticking the "pentagon figures show" label on it.
Just curious mtlucas0311, were you around for the last draft to see how it worked?
I was. If you you wanted out or deferred, and were lucky enough, you went to college.(or left the country altogether if you could afford to do that) If you didnt have the ways or means, you had two choices (maybe more, depending on your number), you either enlisted, which was the smarter choice, because you had some control, or you were drafted. I know a number of people who did both.
I grew up in the military, with a bunch of 30+ year, gung ho lifers (I know what the 0311 MOS is, I grew up with a group of people who acquired the 0321 later, as it wast an MOS when they started or were in) and know very well what goes on and how your treated, and what to expect from the government and the military, especially when things go into peacetime and they are done with you.
My father was a Marine recruiter between tours in the 60''s and 70's. (he spent three in the RVN) They were taking anyone and everyone back then and lying through their teeth to get them in. You didnt need a HS diploma, and they would also take you with a record. The bulk of the "enlistees" were lower middle class down.
The pressure on the recruiters was so heavy, they had to "help" a lot of people with the entrance "test". My father could not understand why they couldnt pass it, as it was an easy test. I took it at the kitchen table in the 6th grade, along with my aunt, who was two years older than me and in the 7th grade. We both passed it. I missed one question, she missed two. It was an easy test. Do you suppose if they were still working with those standards now, we would have a good, working armed forces today?
I was 1A(#34) in high school and was all set to sign up at graduation, and was told in no uncertain terms by my father, and a couple of "Uncles", not to and to wait. (I couldnt if I wanted to at that point anyway, as I was 17 at the time and needed a parents signature, which I wasnt going to get.) After three and four tours in the RVN and seeing what went on and was going on, and as much as he would have liked to see me go into the Corps, I was told not to do it. I listened, and at this point, I dont now regret it and see why they said no. War is hell, but being stuck in a peactime USMC makes hell look good.
I was. If you you wanted out or deferred, and were lucky enough, you went to college.(or left the country altogether if you could afford to do that) If you didnt have the ways or means, you had two choices (maybe more, depending on your number), you either enlisted, which was the smarter choice, because you had some control, or you were drafted. I know a number of people who did both.
I grew up in the military, with a bunch of 30+ year, gung ho lifers (I know what the 0311 MOS is, I grew up with a group of people who acquired the 0321 later, as it wast an MOS when they started or were in) and know very well what goes on and how your treated, and what to expect from the government and the military, especially when things go into peacetime and they are done with you.
My father was a Marine recruiter between tours in the 60''s and 70's. (he spent three in the RVN) They were taking anyone and everyone back then and lying through their teeth to get them in. You didnt need a HS diploma, and they would also take you with a record. The bulk of the "enlistees" were lower middle class down.
The pressure on the recruiters was so heavy, they had to "help" a lot of people with the entrance "test". My father could not understand why they couldnt pass it, as it was an easy test. I took it at the kitchen table in the 6th grade, along with my aunt, who was two years older than me and in the 7th grade. We both passed it. I missed one question, she missed two. It was an easy test. Do you suppose if they were still working with those standards now, we would have a good, working armed forces today?
I was 1A(#34) in high school and was all set to sign up at graduation, and was told in no uncertain terms by my father, and a couple of "Uncles", not to and to wait. (I couldnt if I wanted to at that point anyway, as I was 17 at the time and needed a parents signature, which I wasnt going to get.) After three and four tours in the RVN and seeing what went on and was going on, and as much as he would have liked to see me go into the Corps, I was told not to do it. I listened, and at this point, I dont now regret it and see why they said no. War is hell, but being stuck in a peactime USMC makes hell look good.
I see a lot of misinformation within this thread on service members.
These are some stats. more are on other websites.
The stereotypes are wrong. Let's look at the facts, starting with who actually served in Vietnam.
The image of those who fought in Vietnam is one of poorly educated, reluctant draftees -- predominantly poor whites and minorities. But in reality, only one-third of Vietnam-era veterans entered the military through the draft, far lower than the 66 percent drafted in World War II.
It was the best-educated and most egalitarian military force in America's history -- and with the advent of the all-volunteer military, is likely to remain so. In WWII, only 45 percent of the troops had a high school diploma. During the Vietnam War, almost 80 percent of those who enlisted had high school diplomas, and the percentage was higher for draftees -- even though, at the time, only 65 percent of military-age males had a high school diploma.
Throughout the Vietnam era, the median education level of the enlisted man was about 13 years. Proportionately, three times as many college graduates served in Vietnam than in WWII.
Taken from this site(http://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm)
These are some stats. more are on other websites.
The stereotypes are wrong. Let's look at the facts, starting with who actually served in Vietnam.
The image of those who fought in Vietnam is one of poorly educated, reluctant draftees -- predominantly poor whites and minorities. But in reality, only one-third of Vietnam-era veterans entered the military through the draft, far lower than the 66 percent drafted in World War II.
It was the best-educated and most egalitarian military force in America's history -- and with the advent of the all-volunteer military, is likely to remain so. In WWII, only 45 percent of the troops had a high school diploma. During the Vietnam War, almost 80 percent of those who enlisted had high school diplomas, and the percentage was higher for draftees -- even though, at the time, only 65 percent of military-age males had a high school diploma.
Throughout the Vietnam era, the median education level of the enlisted man was about 13 years. Proportionately, three times as many college graduates served in Vietnam than in WWII.
Taken from this site(http://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm)
- Status