HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do You Want to End Unnece...

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:26 PM

 

Do You Want to End Unnecessary American Wars? Reinstate the Draft

That's right, bring back the Draft. No deferments. Everybody in. Pick by lottery.

I grew up during the Viet Nam conflict. I protested against the war and wrote about ending it in my College paper in 1970. I mistakenly thought then that ending the draft would end unnecessary American military intervention. I was 104 in the lottery in one of those last years. Look it up. 104 was September 18 in 1970 when I turned 18. I thought, "who would join if they didn't have to"? History has proven me wrong.

Let Mitt's 5 sons and so many others like the Romney family enter the draft. Let's see how gung-ho they are when their flesh and blood is involved. Let's see if they're willing to risk those they love and cherish in a war they know is built on a lie.

If we choose again to go to war, to put boots on the ground, then it should be "everybody in". I now believe that the war protests in the late 60's and early 70's were fueled by the fact that anybody could go. You had to lie or defect to stay out of the war. The only way you could remain an American and in good conscience not go to a war you knew was wrong was to try to end it. That's what's missing today. If everybody's kid is at risk, everybody would bloody well be informed about the conflict and the lies would be more closely examined by the general public.

Anyway, that's my thought for today.

88 replies, 15457 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do You Want to End Unnecessary American Wars? Reinstate the Draft (Original post)
louis c Jul 2012 OP
TheMastersNemesis Jul 2012 #1
elleng Jul 2012 #3
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #21
lunatica Jul 2012 #24
elleng Jul 2012 #2
lunasun Jul 2012 #4
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #5
OnyxCollie Jul 2012 #7
pampango Jul 2012 #34
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #59
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #62
Scuba Jul 2012 #18
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #22
Scuba Jul 2012 #23
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #25
Scuba Jul 2012 #26
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #28
2pooped2pop Jul 2012 #32
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #37
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #40
2pooped2pop Jul 2012 #50
Drale Jul 2012 #53
2pooped2pop Jul 2012 #55
riverbendviewgal Jul 2012 #6
Scuba Jul 2012 #19
jeff47 Jul 2012 #8
w8liftinglady Jul 2012 #9
abelenkpe Jul 2012 #10
nc4bo Jul 2012 #11
braddy Jul 2012 #12
Zalatix Aug 2012 #81
braddy Aug 2012 #82
Zalatix Aug 2012 #83
braddy Aug 2012 #85
Zalatix Jul 2012 #13
toddwv Jul 2012 #14
jimmyd13 Jul 2012 #15
Marinedem Jul 2012 #16
GreenPartyVoter Jul 2012 #36
Gemini Cat Jul 2012 #17
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #20
djean111 Jul 2012 #27
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #29
Lurks Often Jul 2012 #30
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #31
Phentex Jul 2012 #33
Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #54
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #56
Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #58
JVS Jul 2012 #61
louis c Aug 2012 #70
pinboy3niner Aug 2012 #74
Scootaloo Aug 2012 #78
Hotler Aug 2012 #76
Mr Dixon Jul 2012 #35
HughBeaumont Jul 2012 #38
pampango Jul 2012 #39
1-Old-Man Jul 2012 #41
Arkana Jul 2012 #42
99Forever Jul 2012 #43
hack89 Jul 2012 #44
Javaman Jul 2012 #45
braddy Aug 2012 #79
Javaman Aug 2012 #88
pinboy3niner Aug 2012 #84
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #46
_ed_ Jul 2012 #47
dmosh42 Jul 2012 #48
Yavin4 Jul 2012 #49
lonestarnot Jul 2012 #51
DinahMoeHum Jul 2012 #52
FreeJoe Jul 2012 #57
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #60
Sirveri Jul 2012 #63
1-Old-Man Jul 2012 #64
Sirveri Jul 2012 #69
louis c Aug 2012 #72
Zalatix Aug 2012 #80
pinboy3niner Aug 2012 #86
closeupready Jul 2012 #65
yellowcanine Jul 2012 #66
AverageJoe90 Jul 2012 #67
fascisthunter Jul 2012 #68
Puregonzo1188 Aug 2012 #71
louis c Aug 2012 #73
NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #75
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #77
area51 Aug 2012 #87

Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:33 PM

1. The Draft Will Never Be Reinstated.

 

What the GOP is doing now works too well for there to be a draft. Jobs are so bad for younger people without money the military is the only option for them. And the conservatives just love it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:35 PM

3. Right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:56 AM

21. +1.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:39 AM

24. I knew that during Bush's stolen Presidency

They figured out how to grow the military by making it the only viable choice for young Americans to make a living and to escape poverty. They started cutting social programs for just that reason. Force the youth to choose between abject poverty or joining the military.

They won't reinstate the draft because they don't need to. And it could stop their profitable wars and we can't have that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:34 PM

2. Been my thought for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:56 PM

4. only way to get middle America to notice the wars anymore

No deferments could actually stop wars from starting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:59 PM

5. Evidently wrong.

 

Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war, plus a few minor interventions, occurred with a draft. Conscription enables more and bigger wars, always has and always will. Plus "they" are much better prepared to suppress resistance to a war than they were in the 60s, in fact they have been preparing for just such a scenario for the last 40 years.

Fuck the draft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:05 PM

7. "War is a racket.

 

Well, itís a racket, all right. A few profit- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it.
You canít end it by disarmament conferences. You canít eliminate it by peace parlays at
Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups canít wipe it out by resolutions. It can be
smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

-Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket, p. 39.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:20 AM

34. Actually Europe hasn't had a war since they opened borders

with each other. The old days of hyper nationalism and closed borders never saw such a long period of peace. So international agreements can lead to peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:56 PM

59. I'm sure if we had the two greatest wars in history on our continent

 

within short succession leaving millions dead we'd lose a taste for it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:24 PM

62. Well, there were the Indian Wars...

 

And in terms of relative population, the Civil War was awfully gruesome.

Of course to many Americans these "don't count" since killing lots of Indians and having a civil war doesn't allow us to tell the british "if it weren't fer us, hur hur"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:34 AM

18. You're overlooking changes in media and communications since the Korean war ended....

 

.... Nixon ended the draft precisely because it was the source of opposition to the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:21 AM

22. No I didn't. I said that actually the situation now is worse than in the 60s.

 

The government is very well prepared to put down any resistance movement, far better than it was in the 60s, and no the internets doesn't change everything.

The proponents for the draft keep citing the fact that the draft sort of ended as we pulled out of Vietnam. They ignore the fact that we were there with draftees for years, for over 50000 casualties, before that happened, and that it was the cold war draft that enabled that war to begin with. You all have no historical basis for your assertion that the draft would prevent a war, the best you have going for you is that it might shorten one. I'm making the claim that it wouldn't even do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:26 AM

23. I strongly disagree. You start drafting the sons and daughters of the wealthy and ...

 

... we will have fewer and shorter wars. The current "poverty draft" gives our war machine a free license to sacrifice American lives for corporate profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:47 AM

25. And when has that ever happened?

 

That is the second ahistorical part of the argument you all make. You wave a magic wand and the corrupt sausage factory in Washington produces a universal draft that is actually universal. We obviously live on different planets.

But even then that would not stop one damn war from starting. You cannot point to one war that was prevented by the draft. Yet you keep claiming it will do this, and we are supposed to accept that on faith. What history shows is that conscription enables wars, but you all keep claiming it does the opposite. And the best you can do to back that up is to wave a magic wand that puts the kids of the rich on the front lines - that ain't ever going to happen and you know it. Not in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:50 AM

26. First of all, lack of a draft certainly hasn't slowed the war machine...

 

... secondly, your reach of historical precedent ignores the fact that the world has never been like this before.

When I served, the military was full of folks from all walks of life, including the wealthy. A draft that required ALL able-bodied men and women to serve would indeed act as a deterrent to war.

Arguing that Congress is incapable of enacting such a draft does not change this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:55 AM

28. 50000 casualties in Vietnam compared to 3500 in Iraq.

 

Conscripts are cheap. The appropriate term is cannon fodder.

"the world has never been like this before"

Indeed we have never before had this pervasive a surveillance state within the parameters of a nominal democratic republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:11 AM

32. people who want the draft

 

probably don't have children of that age. And we know that no matter what, the rich won't be going.

The only possible good of a draft is to get the people in an uproar. But that won't stop the poor and middle class from being drafted while the rich find ways out or go in at a high level out of harms way.

Fuck the draft. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:40 AM

37. It's basically a bunch of wash-outs hoping to feel relevant again

 

Just as their parents persist in the cane-waving, sanctimonious declarations that "we need another good war!" we're going to hear the boomers rattling their walkers and shouting about how "we need another draft!" for at least another two decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:16 AM

40. Not this boomer. Fuck the draft.

 

It is and was the only decent thing we did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:25 AM

50. I'm considered a boomer

 

but I say Fuck the Draft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:54 AM

53. Don't have children of that age and/ or are not of draft age

I'll tell you right now, if they reinstate the draft I will give up my citizenship and leave the county. I will not now nor ever join the military and the only time I will ever fight "for my country" is if the United States in physical invaded by a foreign force or if there was ever a coup and extreme right wingers controlled the entire government.

And also I feel I must once again point this out, our military is to big as it is and to costly,yet you want to add hundreds of thousands of more soldiers to it? You are nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #53)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:47 AM

55. and they don't take care of the ones they have either

 

I know a young vet just recently back. He's having a terrible time. No food. No shelter. THey should automatically put these guys into the welfare system at the least, until they get reacclimated to this life again (if ever). That's the least they can do for these guys they used & abused.

And I feel exactly as you do about being drafted into our current military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:01 PM

6. Too late for mitt's sons...they are too old

It seems to me that poverty increased when the draft was abolished and thus lots of poor kids joined the military because it is the only way out of poverty.

To defect from the war meant giving up your country and your family and friends. It was a major decision and not an easy one.

Those who had deferrals like Cheney or got the cushy National Guard (at that time) avoided getting killed or maimed. Many were young rich lads who did not want to get shot at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:34 AM

19. Too old to die for your country? I think not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:22 PM

8. The flaw in your proposal is it would never affect children of the wealthy

You can claim "everybody in" all you want. Doesn't mean a kid like W would be sent to the "front lines".

So under your proposal, plenty more kids of poor people to throw into a meat grinder, while the kids of the people who start the war walk around the Pentagon or other US bases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:24 PM

9. Only if it was mandatory service,like Israel has

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:43 PM

10. Yeah.....no

Rich kids would never be put in harms way. Why give the MIC more cannon fodder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:59 PM

11. War bonds....

Take to the people who will ultimately pay for it. No more of this in-the-cover-of-darkness crap.

Draft and sell those bonds. Don't want to do either, then no warring for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:09 AM

12. Vietnam was almost unique in having a low % of draftees, WWII was about 70% draftee, Vietnam 30%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:28 AM

81. The WWII draft was more of a filter than a vacuum sucker.

 

Men were clamoring to go to war in World War II. The Draft was instituted to filter out the 4F's, the ones who were unsuited to fight. Designation 4F, the "unsuitable for war", was the a status that men DREADED back then. 1A, "ready to fight" was a validation of one's manhood.

In Vietnam, it was the exact opposite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:36 AM

82. Actually the WWII draft was to get men into the combat units, 93% of the army was drafted.

A draft versus volunteers has nothing to do with the medical exams given to every soldier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:42 AM

83. Yes, but in WW-II men were desperate to go. They wanted designation 1A.

 

Look up history... 4F was devastating. Men did what they could to get around 4F to get sent out.

In 'nam... it was the exact opposite.

http://nebraskastudies.unl.edu/0800/frameset_reset.html?http://nebraskastudies.unl.edu/0800/stories/0801_0106.html

Recruits:
The 4-F Classification

After the draft was instituted in 1940, not all of the young men who registered were accepted into the service. Thirty percent of registrants across America were rejected for physical defects. The 4-F classification was given primarily for muscular and bone malformations, hearing or circulatory ailments, mental deficiency or disease, hernias, and syphilis. There were ramifications when a man got that classification.
"Nobody wanted to date these boys who didn't pass their physicals, and we called them "f-Fers." Now that I think back, that was terrible. . . We all thought they were physically unfit to go and fight for our country. How awful!"
ó Sylvia Iwanski Chalupsky, Ord, Nebraska State Bank employee.
"When I started college in the fall of 1944, it was like a girls' school ó 95 women and only five men students. During the second semester of my sophomore year, more male students were enrolled. By 1948 when I graduated, there were twice as many men as female students. During that first year, several of the girls dated high school seniors because to us the boys on campus were '4-F.' They needed a good reason for not being in the service to be respected by the girls."
ó Wanda Mowry, Bayard High School student.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #83)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:52 AM

85. Evidently not, they needed the draft to fill the ground forces, seafaring forces were 36% drafted

Wearing a uniform is one thing, combat arms is another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:13 AM

13. That's like re-instituting slavery to show how Jim Crow is wrong. Bad idea. To this I say...

 



'tis nayest I say, NAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:31 AM

14. A "War Tax" would be better.

20%, no loopholes, for those earning $500,000 or more while we have US soldiers deployed overseas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:46 AM

15. My draft lottery number was also 104

 

in 1969, the first year of the lottery draft. We had a gathering at a friends house with about 12 of us watching the drawings on TV. I'll never forget a friend of mine who's birth date was chosen on the first draw. He clutched his stomach and fell from a couch to the floor. But he caught a break when drafted because he was sent to Germany, not Viet Nam. I was never drafted.

And I agree. Bring back the draft and watch how fast these unnecessary wars come to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:12 AM

16. No thank you.

 

Actually, let me rephrase that.

Fuck no.

I don't have enough hours in the day to talk about how stupid it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:30 AM

36. Agreed. #1 The decision makers always seem to get _their_ kids out of harm's way. #2 A volunteer

military is stronger than a group that doesn't even want to be there. And #3, I am not giving up my kids to a war machine. It's one thing to defend your nation. It's another thing to defend corporate interests and resources.

My Dad was a member for Veterans for Peace and he didn't want my boys going into the military, not the way they are running things now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:03 AM

17. Not this crap again.

Do you really want the PTB to have a large pool of young people to fight and die in yet another unjust war? Do you really think that the 1% would ever be on the front lines? Yeah, everyone might have skin in the game, but their skin would not be on a battle field, instead, their skin would be safely placed in areas where the only thing they had to worry about would be a hang-over in the morning.

Since when have things been fair?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:51 AM

20. I know some wealthy guys who dodged the draft during WW II when the top draft age was 45

They explained their lack of service this way to me.

"Someone had to stay back here and protect the womenfolk."

True story.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:54 AM

27. No.

 

The rich will manage, as always, to evade the draft.
And the will of the people doesn't count for much any more.
The rich and their Congressional lap dogs will just ignore - at best - the general public.
Like they do now.
Besides - you said "if we choose to go to war" - there is no "we", the American people do not get to choose anything any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:57 AM

29. Add this ... "Children and or grandchildren (of age) of all elected officials go automatically."

We'd only go to war when it was absolutely necessary then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:00 AM

30. Haven't we stopped beating this dead horse yet?

 

No one wants a draft except those mistaken few who think it will magically stop war.

The draft has never stopped war and it never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:09 AM

31. You want my advice?

 

Pull a double and get a second thought for the day, because this is a dumb one.

You bring up Mitt's sons. Okay. You know Mitt Romney got four deferments, right? You know Dick Cheney got what, three? Daddy Bush bought his kid a cushy spot in the Texas National Guard. So on and so on. Similar families of wealth and means got to "step aside" in previous conflicts, all the way back to our foundational war in 1776.

18 in 1970? So you're fifty now. How cushy for you that you'd be well above draft age? Know what's hilarious? Every other time this "new and original" idea comes up, it's from someone else over the draft age.

Alright. You want a draft? Let's reinstate the draft. But more than that, let's pick up where we stopped. How 'bout that? All of you guys who pop your heads up here every day and spout this idea? Your number's up, and you get to be the first ones disembarking on our new conflict. After all, "everybody in," right? Starting with the people who want it most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:13 AM

33. nice!

thumbsup: :

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:39 AM

54. Nice post, except there was no draft in 1776

The first draft in the US occurred during the Civil War. Draftees could get out of it by paying a fee of $300 in gold (the equivalent of $24,000 today). The enactment of the draft led to the New York Draft Riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:53 PM

56. There were drafts, but not "the draft"

 

Several states utilized the draft during the Revolutionary war; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Colonial_to_1861

And when you get down to it, conscription is conscription, whether or not it's a lottery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #56)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:45 PM

58. There was conscription by a few states/colonies during the Revolution

but it was not consistent or widespread. The Continental Army was made up almost entirely of volunteers, both rich and poor. A lot of volunteers were wealthy, or at least well-to-do men, like Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, and Ethan Allen. The leader of the Continental Army, of course, was one of the richest men in the colonies at that time, George Washington, who actively participated in the fighting.

The draft was not officially implemented by the US until the Civil War, and there was immediate opposition to it because of the provision that allowed wealthy draftees to evade the draft if they could come up with the $300 "commutation fee".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:09 PM

61. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:44 PM

70. Actually, 60 on Sept. 18

 

Re-Do your math.

Anyway, my point is that these wars have people doing 4 or 5 tours of duty with mainly the middle-class and poor doing the fighting.

I think the draft during Viet-Nam ended that war. If we had an all volunteer army, we might still be fighting it.

Afghanistan has been a longer war and we're still fighting it. Where's the outcry?

I contend that it is being fought by a small portion of our citizens, so the outcry is contained.

I hate war and at 60, I will never fight.

But I have family that could go. I am against foreign conflicts, except in the most necessary of circumstances. And then only with an act of war by Congress.

I think that we would not go to war except when absolutely necessary if everybody had skin in the game.

I'm not saying that I know I'm right. I'm just saying that it's a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #70)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:56 PM

74. More than 17,000 draftees died in Vietnam before the war ended

That's one reason many are dubious not only about the effectiveness of a draft in preventing or ending war, but they also question the consequences to the innocent victims and their families.

That doesn't even count draftees who were wounded and maimed (for which you can multiply the 17,000+ deaths roughly by 5).

That's something else we need to be thoughtful about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #70)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:11 AM

78. Yep, bad math on my part

 

First off no, Afghanistan has not been a longer war. Vietnam still has one year on it (remember, we were sending "advisers" in pretty early on... those "advisers" were armed and taking part in the fighting.) You'll also note the relative body counts between the two. Both for us and our "enemies." There's a pretty big difference between the two engagements in that regard.

Ypu think whatever you like, but it's not fact. The draft went on for the entirety of the Vietnam war, as well as the entirety of the Korean War, and every other war back to the Civil War. You think Vietnam was nasty and against popular sentiment? Research our war in the Philippines.

What ended Vietnam was the fact that the Vietnamese people defeated us. The United States went in to "defeat communism," never considering for a moment that the people of "South Vietnam" wanted communism. We were attempting to pacify an extremely popular revolution in a nation we were ill-equipped to fight in. The Vietnamese won. Eleven years after our first guns started firing, we noticed that we had done nothing but lose ground, at high cost in lives and money, and decided to cut losses and pull out.

This is something that you and those of your generation on the right have on common. Neither of you can stop and admit that the Vietnam war didn't "end," it was lost. It doesn't sink into your head that the causes for this loss were in Vietnam, and not in whatever town you were living in at the time. It wasn't protests, it wasn't "lack of will to win," it was simply that the Viet Cong had the overwhelming popular support of the South Vietnamese and the backing of the NVA, and our military was unable to overcome that.

If you want a draft, take your spotted wrinkly ass and go fight. I'm not going to put my butt on the line so you can relive some dumb fucking fantasy that never happened in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:08 PM

76. I'm 57, I'll be happy to go. Don't want to talk draft, how about...

talking mass protest. The same people that poo-poo the draft always have an excuse for not protesting. Nothing is going to start to change in this country until three things happen.
!. More people feel the pain. (That's why I say let the repugs have 2012.)
2. People take to the streets by the tens of thousands in every state. (Shut this country down for two plus months.)
3. Democrats give up their "I have have mine. Fuck you." attitudes. Yes they have it too. They just don't wear it on their sleeves like the repugs do.
flame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:23 AM

35. IMO

Pretty good analysis, problem is the military industrial complex understands your point also so it will never happen. Today military is optional form of action and every now and then they have to use the military to justify it. Billions of dollars feed the machine, large companies have and still do depend on the military for profits and business is good. Wars are marketed just like everything else, if you have ever heard an F-35 fighter commercial, the grandiose announcer; American is the greatest fighting force in the world and the F-35 leads the way ,Which is complete BS because this aircraft got smoked in Air to Air combat training against all of the Air craft it faced. Not to mention the numerous weapons systems sold to the military that never saw combat and are now obsolete, can you say wasted tax payer dollars.
The actual Soldiers are way down on the priority list, the key is to keep them in a mindset that they are important, but if they were important the why are a good percentage of them of Food stamps? The 1% has rigged the game, you never will see Mittís kids go to war, but you can best believe your kids will be used to paint the foreign lands with blood, for profit. Itís funny that the most gun ho politicians never have a dog in the fight. The moral convictions to fight a War has been kidnapped for contracts and profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:54 AM

38. "Funny thing about fishing . . . it never works out so well for the bait."

My son will not set one FOOT in a corporation-benefitting invasion of folly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:00 AM

39. If we're not worried about anyone's rights, let's reinstate slavery but just for the children of

politicians who vote for war.

A terrible idea but worse than drafting 18-year-olds who probably weren't old enough to vote when the war-declaring politicians were elected?

And any society that is progressive enough to truly make all classes equally susceptible to a draft is too progressive to start wars in the first place. The rich will not have their children subject to a draft if there is a war that required more "cannon-fodder".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:18 AM

41. I agree with you completely - reinstate the Draft, men and women

A year or two ago I read an article about reinstating the draft that claimed that the biggest problem we'd have with a new draft would not be getting enough names on the roles but instead trying to find a just way to defer service. It seems we have way way more young people who would be eligible to serve than we have a need for hot bodies. As I recall, and this could be way off, only about 5% of the available pool of potential draftees would be required to fill the ranks - so how do you exclude 95% of the people in anything like a just manner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:21 AM

42. No. I'm of draft age, and I sure as hell don't want to be sent

to fight in a war that I don't support and NEVER supported.

Some people feel a calling during times of conflict to serve in the armed forces. Not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:25 AM

43. And a good thought it is.

My firm belief is that any member of our government that advocates sending our troops into harms way, MUST have an immediate family member directly in the line of fire or be removed from office. Hey, I can dream, right?


(And yes, I already realize it isn't workable.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:43 AM

44. The Army is too small compared to the pool of draftees to make it fair

unless you are willing to pay for a massive expansion of the military, the military will only need a small fraction of eligible men and women. And don't forget that there are many that are willing to volunteer - that leaves even fewer positions for draftees.

A second problem is that so many young people don't meet standards for joining the military, whether it be education (have to be a HS grad), physical (too many overweight people) or criminal (to many people with drug/alcohol infractions)

That poses two problems:

1. The question of fairness - way too many young people not draft eligible.

2. It does not meet your desire for "everybody in".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:52 AM

45. Meh, hit and run post.

I'm always amused by the "reinstate the draft to stop wars!!!" meme.

If I recall, the draft for Viet Nam went into effect in 1969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)

and the war didn't end until...

1975.

and to believe that "everyone must serve" blah blah blah, I have a bridge to sell you.

As long as their are the ultra wealthy, there will always be people who can buy their way out.

And if that ability is somehow defeated the ultra wealthy will always serve in the rear. (no pun intended).

So please stop with these grand proclamations if irrationality, it really serves no purpose other than venting ones spleen if ridiculousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:55 AM

79. I use 1963 to 1973 for Vietnam, but most official sources call it 1965 to 1975, the draft went from

1948 to 1973. About 30% of those killed in Vietnam were draftees.

In 1963 we sent 16,000 troops. For some interesting info look here, it mentions Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Truman and Eisenhower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #79)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:39 AM

88. You're correct, I should have said "lottery" and not draft. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:48 AM

84. You're right on both counts

While the draft did energize the anti-VN War movement, the war continued--with more than 17,000 draftees KIA and many more draftees wounded and maimed.

And even if many of the VN-era exemptions were to be thrown out in some new, universal, draft, the wealthy will always be able to find doctors who will document the medical/physical unfitness of their princes for service. It's only fair--after all, they have better things to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:52 AM

46. I've seen this flawed argument way too many times...

 

And my response is always the same: Fuck no.

I'd rather keep things the way they are now if it means risking me and the people I care about going to war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:57 AM

47. Bush, Cheney, Romney, Quayle etc.

all avoided the draft in Vietnam. Rich kids never fight for this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:11 AM

48. It didn't stop it in Korea and Vietnam, but it did show how this is a class dominated society....

I was growing up during Korea and was discharged from the Navy in the early years of Vietnam. ('60-66') But it did have a lot to do with keeping the country focused on these 'wars of choice'. And I do remember how there was always some reasons for certain celebs and wealthy, not to be inducted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:20 AM

49. The Same Congress Critters That Get Govt. Healthcare While Denying It To The Masses

will easily figure out how to send your kids off to war while keeping their kids out. In addition, the same way that they work in generous tax breaks for their rich benefactors, they will find loopholes for their rich benefactors as well.

In theory, a draft would make more Americans pay attention to wars, but in practice, it won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:27 AM

51. Why so richie rich will have something to do in avoidance? Hmmf.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:43 AM

52. Ain't happening. The rich/well-connected would simply become danger-dodgers

instead of merely draft-dodgers.

The late great blogger Steve Gilliard blasted this notion of the draft being a class equalizer out of the water back in 2006:

http://www.alternet.org/print/story/44556/the_draft%3A_no_solution_to_social_inequality

(snip)
When we talk about the draft, it is through the prism of World War II and the GI Bill. We see the mass armies of World War II as leveling -- one where people served without class distinction.

This is Hollywood's fantasy.

In reality, rich kids gravitated to the Navy and Air Corps, or the OSS, the Office of Strategic Services. They didn't sign up to be Rangers or Airborne, much less infantry.

(snip)
Why do people believe this? There are two factions, one who wants to see the risk spread to more corners of society, and others, who think that the Army can create social equality.

The problem with this thinking is that the rich and well-off just pick other services without much physical risk of injury. The Navy has long been the choice for America's upper class. All three Kennedy brothers who served in World War II chose the Navy -- Ted Kennedy was drafted into the Army during Korea, but stayed in the US.

(snip)

Much more at the link:
http://www.alternet.org/print/story/44556/the_draft%3A_no_solution_to_social_inequality



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:41 PM

57. I'm opposed for many reasons

First, I don't see any evidence that it would decrease the number of wars we engage in.

Second, it would degrade the military. Having it populated by people that don't want to serve hurts its effectiveness, which means that more people get killed.

Third, it would hurt the people in the military. To make a volunteer force work, you have to keep pay and incentives high enough to attract and retain people. If you force them to join, you don't.

If you want a law that makes military service compulsive for all appropriately aged children of congresssman, federal judges, and senior whitehouse staff, I'd be interested in that. Making it a broadbased universal thing is not a solution I want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:59 PM

60. We've had a great many wars with a draft

 

not to mention the draft is fairly antithetical to our whole notion of freedom and personal liberty.

I would be ok with a mandatory period, say three months after finishing HS, of national guard type training (so military + emergency response) with no military obligation.

It would provide useful skills to kids, a sense of community, and a huge reservoir of people should we need to bulk up the military in the future.

But no obligation to serve in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:57 PM

63. No, it's evil. You're talking about forcing people to serve in a killing machine.

Screw that. I support the 13th amendment.

Want to reduce the number of people in the military, work to reduce poverty and close the disparity between rich and poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #63)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:30 PM

64. Your viewpoint is, in my opninion, very short sighted

What the author is talking about is limiting the killing machine by causing more public abhorrence for it. People will not long stand for a war that isn't fought in their own defense when their own children might well die in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #64)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:10 PM

69. So the only thing is to FORCE people to kill other people.

There is another way, that way is to simply elect leaders who won't go to war over BS reasons in the first place. Leaders who actually use diplomacy rather than the big stick. Your way would force people, against their will, to labor. Having been in the service I would never wish such a punishment on any man or woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:46 PM

72. Thanks

 

That's exactly my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #64)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:25 AM

80. The author's idea has never worked in the past.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #64)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:03 AM

86. Yeah, that worked so well in the Vietnam War

You're right, it did lead to more public opposition to the war. And thousands of draftees dying, being wounded, and being maimed.

Even with the increased opposition, the public stood for it long enough for more than 17,000 draftees to die in combat.

Why the hell would anyone with a draft-age kid want to support a new draft?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:32 PM

65. Agreed. I'd support that.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:36 PM

66. Yes, since that worked so well in keeping us out of Nam and then getting us out in

such a timely fashion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:40 PM

67. I'm sorry, but no, this wouldn't work.

 

Louis, I understand this was done with good intentions in mind. Okay? But the thing is, it wouldn't work; this kinda thing is exactly what the Republicans have been pushing for since the Iraq War started, and if it were to happen, this would backfire on us, very badly.....the truth is, there were PLENTY of wealthy kids in the Vietnam era, too, like most of the Dixiecrats for instance, who would have been able to avoid service no matter what, simply because they could.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:45 PM

68. I say we draft all the wealthy and rich kids first!

 

Then, there will never be a war again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:45 PM

71. I guess World War I, the Korean War, and Vietnam were necessary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #71)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:55 PM

73. Again

 

I think the fact that you could be drafted into the Viet-Nam War ended it.

Please understand that questioning our Government didn't really begin until the 60's.

WWI was declared. Right or Wrong, a declared war is certainly different. Korea had support from the unquestioning residue of WWII.

Too many people today have no clue about why we are in the Middle East, nation building.

They and their loved ones are not at risk. A draft will not make the world perfect, but it will make Americans question why we fight. And the questions could avoid or end a conflict more quickly.

Just my thought. I'm not saying that I know I'm right. I'm not saying there isn't a down side.

What I am saying is, "where's the protests for a 10 year war that is still going on, and nobody knows why?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:05 PM

75. Want more unnecessary wars and even more dead kids? Reinstate the draft.

Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:03 PM

77. If they are already drafting your money for these optional wars, and if drafting your money hasn't

 

stopped the wars, it should be reasonable to conclude that actually drafting people (or talking about it) isn't going to stop the unnecessary wars either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:42 AM

87. To end unnecessary wars, we'd need

actual liberals in congress & the white house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread