McCain...Reinstitute the Draft?

The chickenhawks that gall me are the ones who infest most every gun forum who have never served but talk on and on ad nauseum about how they're armed and ready to fight against my country and it's elected government. That bunch I'd like to see sent to Iraq for a year or two. Maybe it'd screw their heads on straight, and even if it didn't, a few of them might stop bullets that would otherwise hit loyal Americans.
 
What was it Senator Obama said?

Something about "... they're going to try to convice you I'm scary..."

So. A woman - not Senator McCain - says in a public discussion "... we have to re-establish the draft..." among other things like foreign threats and small wars around the world and so forth. Senator McCain responds - as is the manner of public speakers - "I agree with what you said..." and the press jumps onto "McCain seeks to reinstate the draft!"

May I ask, who is trying to convince whom just exactly who is scary? Has anyone noticed the level of support, encouragement and outright adoration Senator Obama gets from the 'media'?

Talk about biased and misleading reporting. Sheesh.

The Draft

Whereas I have always been a big Robert A. Heinlein supporter, I have to disagree with his views on the draft. Conscription is not 'forced servitude' or slavery but rather a form of 'taxation in kind'. (Since all my income up to about the middle of May of each year simply pays my taxes, is that 'forced servitude'?)

Frankly, I would have every U. S. citizen (please note the word 'every') do some amount of 'public service' in their post school years. Male, female, educated, dropout, rich or poor; everyone serves. Perhaps not all in the armed services, but primarily.

It provides a common experience for citizens. It educates citizens what is required to defend the country. It gives a 'real world' work experience to all. It puts more than just those who volunteer for whatever reasons into the service and thereby benefits the service.
 
Whereas I have always been a big Robert A. Heinlein supporter, I have to disagree with his views on the draft. Conscription is not 'forced servitude' or slavery but rather a form of 'taxation in kind'. (Since all my income up to about the middle of May of each year simply pays my taxes, is that 'forced servitude'?)
Click to expand...

Well, there are many here who do argue that taxes are forced servitude. I'm not one of them, but logically it's not an entirely unreasonable argument.

The big difference between taxes and conscription (of the military or non-military variety) is that while taxes are quite literally a way of the government taking some predetermined amount of time from my life, at least I'm given some degree of freedom as to how I spend that time.

I can make the money to pay my taxes fixing cars, researching nuclear power, or guiding tourists on fly-fishing expeditions. Sure, the actual degree of economic freedom (as in, choice of job) for the run-of-the-mill Joe is somewhat limited, but it's probably a lot more open than what will be offered to them under any national service requirement.
 
I personally think every citizen upon reaching adulthood should serve. We would not have the nation of lazy, fat, useless, disrespectful, welfare bum trash that we do today.
Click to expand...

This would mean that at any given time we would have a military with about 30 million people or more in it.

As a lieutenant, I make a pretty good chunk of change each month.

How many thousands more like me are you willing to pay for?

For if you are going to yank people out of their chosen career paths, you damn sure have to pay them a living wage.

And what if they are married and have kids. The Army HAS to provide housing and schools for families.

And unemployment is still around 5% in this country.

That means we have JOBS that we need Americans to do in order to support our economy.

How on earth are we going to yank millions of young men out of every graduating high school class each year to do two or three years in the military and not have that effect our economy?

And with that diminished pool of workers, who's going to be paying the taxes to fund this military of millions?

And where do we send them? Six or seven million to the Navy? We don't have enough ships to put that many people on.

Nor do we have enough HOUSING on naval bases to give them someplace to live.

10 million to the Army? With wages? Even if we make 99% of them just infantry, they still need humvees and 2.5 and 5 ton trucks, radios, tents, nets, antennae, sleeping bags, boots...all that stuff.

Who pays for that?

This is silly. The purpose of government or the military is NOT to impart values upon our kids. That's what parents are for.

About the funniest thing about the draft I ever heard was on Air America, of all things.

This is back when they were accusing Bush of wanting to bring it back (a lie).

Don't want to get drafted?

Smoke pot. Light one up in the MEPS station. That'll take care of it.

You only have one life to live, some think it belongs to the State.
 
Sorry, just couldn't resist

military training and discipline taught to every citizen, just like math and history,
Click to expand...

And we have done such a good job with math and history haven't we?

Ignorant idiots who surivive their time in service are discharged ignorant idiots with discipline. And the discipline goes away as soon as they are out of a managed structured environment.

Some people grow up and become good responsible citizens, and others do not.

I used to think everyone should serve, but now I do not. Today I am more inclined to agree with Heinlein (in general), and feel that no one who has not served should be able to hold positions of authority. From Clerk to Congressman, from Policeman to President, this should be the rule. It won't weed out all the wackjobs, but it ought to cut down on some of it.

My objection to the draft is the historical precendent of deferrments, national guard/reserve loopholes, and any other exceptions that would allow those with money and influence to keep themselves and their children safe while those without are put in harm's way.

Don't think a particular war is moral or legal? Fine. Just register as a concientous objector. You won't be sent to fight. But you will still serve. I have no respect for the draft dodgers from the Vietnam era, no matter if they did it legally (college deferment) or if they skipped the country and hid out in Canada or Sweden, or England etc. They all ducked their responsibility, along with their obligations.

You may be a good man. A moral man. A just man. But if you spent the time you should have been in uniform in school, or in a foreign country protesting the war, you don't get a pass from me. I volunteered. So did my children when their time came. If you want my respect, you'll have to do something to earn it.
 
I used to think everyone should serve, but now I do not. Today I am more inclined to agree with Heinlein (in general), and feel that no one who has not served should be able to hold positions of authority. From Clerk to Congressman, from Policeman to President, this should be the rule. It won't weed out all the wackjobs, but it ought to cut down on some of it.
Click to expand...

I like his concept on only honorably discharged vets being able to vote.
 
Then only the honorably discharged should pay taxes - right? Why have others pay for taxes which they have no control over?
 
Our system isn't perfect but yes, we do have a choice in who gets elected and how money is spent via our congress men and president.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I think too many proponents of 2A forget about the first part of it, A well refulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Ever thought about why that was included and no it wasn't so the people could rise up against the government. After the Nobles of the Colonies drafted the Declaration of Independence they soon realized that they had no standing army and were dependent upon the average person to carry out their great words. Many of the commoners took up their arm against the redcoats including my Great-Great-Grandfather. They had no training and omly their personal weapons. They had no real officers to guide them and soon they realized that the British King was not about to lie down and grant freedom to them because of some document written by a bunch of radicals strung out on wine, beer and thoughts of power. These commoners soon found that war was not glorious but their relatives and friends were getting killed. They were getting beaten by the British and the promise of freedom seemed nothing more than some Washington BS just out of a different town.

Many, in fact most began to desert and return to their homes ready to accept the rule of the King while Benjamin Franklin played the part of super stud in Paris. George Washington tried to raise an army by offering land to any many that would join him in the fight but almost froze them all to death while padding his expense account.

Francis Marion decided that if no one else was going to do anything he would. He traveled the back roads of South Carolina recruiting men with a novel idea. They would fight as Americans rather than stand at attention while daring the redcoats to shoot them as was the case with the gentleman's army. Francis Marion didn't have to promise land and riches but recruited Americans to fight like Americans. Soon he had the British on the run and so scared that Washington's paid army could handle them and in true military fashion claim the glory.

Francis Marion no longer lives and I really don't see anyone with his abilities. While Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were making speeches Francis Marion was getting things done. Do you want to follow Marion or Washington? Marion didn't have the power of the draft but you can bet that if he had he would have used it. Washington opted for the all volunteer army. But even the wordsmiths in writing the Constitution had to admit that you couldn't just give everyone a gun and espect everything to work out. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. As a side note the version of 2A passed was different than the version sent to the states for ratification. Even back then the peacemongers had their influence.

:D
 
I like his concept on only honorably discharged vets being able to vote.
Click to expand...

Thats right, because firefighters, police, EMT's, farmers, construction workers, teachers, truck drivers, assembly line workers, doctors, sanitation workers and small business owners contribute absolutely nothing to America, right? :barf: I guess if you're not a soldier, then you really dont matter.
 
Take a chill pill. It's called fiction for a reason. Try reading the book. It's called Starship Troopers.

P.S. You forgot the guy at Walmart that passes out shopping carts.
 
But a bunch of nothing. Because of some idiot blogger's post which was cut and pasted here everyone has now confirmed McCain wants to institute the draft. I guess right after GWB does so, which we've all been hearing about for the last 8 years.

Politics sucks. It really does.
 
44amp wrote:

Ignorant idiots who surivive their time in service are discharged ignorant idiots with discipline. And the discipline goes away as soon as they are out of a managed structured environment.
Click to expand...

I agree. But service would tend to weed out at least a larger percentage of the defective ones. :D

I used to think everyone should serve, but now I do not. Today I am more inclined to agree with Heinlein (in general), and feel that no one who has not served should be able to hold positions of authority. From Clerk to Congressman, from Policeman to President, this should be the rule. It won't weed out all the wackjobs, but it ought to cut down on some of it.
Click to expand...

When I was ranting about the mandatory service, I was thinking more along the lines of a 6mo-1yr. stint. And I know the money would never be there, and its technically impossible to move through that many people, but its a nice thought. (for the record I just can't seem to agree with a guy who wussed out on his duty ending up being the CIC. Hell, at least reservist, NG, Coast Guard....SOMETHING!)

Don't think a particular war is moral or legal? Fine. Just register as a concientous objector. You won't be sent to fight. But you will still serve. I have no respect for the draft dodgers from the Vietnam era, no matter if they did it legally (college deferment) or if they skipped the country and hid out in Canada or Sweden, or England etc. They all ducked their responsibility, along with their obligations.
Click to expand...

100% agreement. No argument here.

You may be a good man. A moral man. A just man. But if you spent the time you should have been in uniform in school, or in a foreign country protesting the war, you don't get a pass from me. I volunteered. So did my children when their time came. If you want my respect, you'll have to do something to earn it.
Click to expand...

Again. Now that said, there are alot of people who contribute greatly to society who have never served, for whatever reason, and they are just as important to keep society working, and are in most cases just as patriotic, and have a strong sense of duty and pride. I only hold contempt for those that ran or shirked their duty when CALLED.

If its not your bag, thats cool, I get it. I can respect that just fine. BUT, if called, you SERVE, no matter your personal feelings on the issue. You ditch, you get no vote, no privledge.....plenty of people didn't agree with it, but they fought anyway.
 
I am retired and have time and interest to attend forums, etc. Twice a year our local community college runs a forum they call "Great Decisions". They run an hour & a half, broken into two 45 minute segments. First the speaker talks and then there is a Q&A session. Most of the attendees are of the WW II - Korea eras. I am glad to say that I one of the younger persons in attendance. At one such forum our speaker was an instructor from the Command & Staff College at Ft Levenworth. I got there early enough before the forum began to hear a WW II looking gentleman ask the speaker about reinstuting the draft. The speaker said that they had explored that and found out several things. One was that they would need to keep the draftee for five years in order to teach them all that is now needed by them and recoup the money spent in training. That is just too long keep someone and it would bogg down the system. Our WW II guy was not impressed as he said that all we need to teach the recruits is how to shoot a rifle. I agree with one thing. Is our military getting too technical?
 
Is the military getting too technical?

If you'd prefer greater numbers of casualties I suppose you could say that.

If we'd tried to take down Iraq in 1991 or 2003 with WWII level technology and training, we would have had MUCH higher casualties.

Now we can park smart bombs through air-conditioner vents.

The Excaliber 155mm howitzer shell can be fired at a target 17 miles away and land within 30 feet of the target.

It takes a lot of technology to make that happen.
 
I am retired and have time and interest to attend forums, etc. Twice a year our local community college runs a forum they call "Great Decisions". They run an hour & a half, broken into two 45 minute segments. First the speaker talks and then there is a Q&A session. Most of the attendees are of the WW II - Korea eras. I am glad to say that I one of the younger persons in attendance. At one such forum our speaker was an instructor from the Command & Staff College at Ft Levenworth. I got there early enough before the forum began to hear a WW II looking gentleman ask the speaker about reinstuting the draft. The speaker said that they had explored that and found out several things. One was that they would need to keep the draftee for five years in order to teach them all that is now needed by them and recoup the money spent in training. That is just too long keep someone and it would bogg down the system. Our WW II guy was not impressed as he said that all we need to teach the recruits is how to shoot a rifle. I agree with one thing. Is our military getting too technical?
Click to expand...

Five years? How exactly does one reconcile that with the enlistments as short as one year (plus stop-loss, of course) that the Army offers now? The Army has been offering 2-year and 3-year enlistment for at least a decade (the former was often limited to specific MOSs).

There is a lot more to it nowadays than learning to shoot a rifle. But not every soldier is sitting in front of the giant bank of computer screens you see in the recruiting commercials. Anybody here taken the ASVAB? The cutoff for the Army is like a 30 on that test...which is, to say the lest, well below genius level. And I'm pretty sure that's without a waiver. I've met guys in the Army (and in the Guard) that were borderline mentally handicapped, and a couple that I think could probably be qualified as actually mentally handicapped. These guys were all able to do their jobs, to standard, and more than willing to serve their country...I'm not trying to bag on them. I'm just saying this idea that the Army can only use smart and technically proficient soldiers is a load of crap. Trust me, recruiters are still chasing the rocks as well.

There are quite a few MOSs that are too technical to toss draftees into. But the average guy in a combat-arms line company needs to know how to work a rifle, a radio, and a couple other things like NVGs. All of which are quite decently "Joe-proofed."

It takes a lot of technology to make that happen.
Click to expand...

Not speaking of the Excaliber, as I've not been on it, but I was an Abrams crewman a while back. There is a lot of absolutely amazing technology on the Abrams. But the average crewman (particularly the driver and loader) are not responsible for designing it, nor are they generally responsible for servicing it. They push the button. There's a lot of technology in the kitchen of a McDonald's, as well. Doesn't mean it takes a rocket scientist to operate it.
 
Ever thought about why that was included and no it wasn't so the people could rise up against the government. After the Nobles of the Colonies drafted the Declaration of Independence they soon realized that they had no standing army...
Click to expand...
You're partially correct. They DID NOT WANT A STABDING ARMY, "THE BANE OF LIBERTY."

If we had NO standing army we would NOT be pushing our noses where it did NOT belong.

I'm ALL FOR MILITIA SERVICE (i.e., State Guard Units). The thought of being forced to fight for the Elite scum who "own" this nation is a deal breaker for me. There once was a time they could have used me well and I was naive enough to allow them to. Looking back, the auto accident was a damned good opportunity for me to sit still and truly THINK ABOUT IT. I love the idea of training with and without weapons and I have qualms about raising Hell for THE DEFENSE OF THE NATIONAL BORDERS & ANY NUMBER OF STATES IN TROUBLE but I will NOT put myself in harm's way for... the Republic of Georgia, Dagestan, Kyrgyzstan, WhotheHellisStan or any other nation of persons whom if I really wished to visit their nation I should simply request a VISA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top