Why Do We Resort to the Draft?

[belverron]

If there's already a thread on this subject, please direct me to it, PatrickHenry

If we live in a nation that follows capitalist principles, why do we consider forcing people to serve? Why shouldn't market forces determine a soldier's wage?

If conservatives firmly believe in capitalism, why are they the first to suggest a draft?

If we can draft soldiers, is there a reason we cannot draft teachers? We have a shortage of good ones, and they also are vital to our country's continued livelihood.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: belverron If there's already a thread on this subject, please direct me to it, PatrickHenry If we live in a nation that follows capitalist principles, why do we consider forcing people to serve? Why shouldn't market forces determine a soldier's wage? If conservatives firmly believe in capitalism, why are they the first to suggest a draft? If we can draft soldiers, is there a reason we cannot draft teachers? We have a shortage of good ones, and they also are vital to our country's continued livelihood.

We find solutions to the problems that occur in our lives everyday, not the ones that occur every 30 years or so (like a draft). I certainly agree with you that something needs to be figured out, because next draft, I don't think things will go smoothly, unless people are rallied to war by something like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

[Livemike]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Quote by: belverron If there's already a thread on this subject, please direct me to it, PatrickHenry If we live in a nation that follows capitalist principles, why do we consider forcing people to serve? Why shouldn't market forces determine a soldier's wage? If conservatives firmly believe in capitalism, why are they the first to suggest a draft? If we can draft soldiers, is there a reason we cannot draft teachers? We have a shortage of good ones, and they also are vital to our country's continued livelihood. We find solutions to the problems that occur in our lives everyday, not the ones that occur every 30 years or so (like a draft). I certainly agree with you that something needs to be figured out, because next draft, I don't think things will go smoothly, unless people are rallied to war by something like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

The market finds solutions to problems that occur every 30 year or so all the time. In fact it finds solutions to problems that have never occured before and probably never will again. It does this so smoothly people forget that it anticipated the problems before they occured.

[Mark A Shrider]

Quote by: belverron If conservatives firmly believe in capitalism, why are they the first to suggest a draft?

Where do you get this idea?

HR163 was proposed by Charles Rangel & co-sponsored by 14 other democrats.

S.89 was proposed by Fritz Hollings & not supported by anyone else in the senate.

I think you need to chat with your liberal friends in Congress.

[belverron]

Quote by: Mark A Shrider Where do you get this idea? HR163 was proposed by Charles Rangel & co-sponsored by 14 other democrats. S.89 was proposed by Fritz Hollings & not supported by anyone else in the senate. I think you need to chat with your liberal friends in Congress.

Humm. I guess I assumed Democrats would know their base well enough not to try something that stupid.

Did they propose them seriously or to get anti-war support through the "threat of a draft."

[Sonart]

Interestingly enough, liberals were both for and against the draft. As Strider pointed out, it's the far left now pushing for the draft because they're convinced that it's predominantly poor, minority people who are attracted to the volunteer army as a way out of poverty... the only jobs or college access available to them. Yet, during the Vietnam war and it's draft, the far left was convinced that it was only poor, minority people who were getting sucked into the draft, since the rich and middle class white kids were avoiding the draft with college deferments. A fond memory Congressman Rangle conveniently forgets.

.

[RickSp]

The simple answer is that we do not need a draft. There is no shortage of patriotic Americans who would enlist if America was attacked. After 9/11, enlistments went way up. If on the other hand a reckless president launches a needless war that quickly sinks into a bloody quagmire, then perhaps enlistment should fall off.

If there is any area in which a person should have a choice it should be in whether or not he or she will fight and die for a cause. Too many draftees died in Vietnam and for what?

[James]

The main reason a draft is needed when it is is the liberal media and all the crazies like Cindy Sheehan who think that we can all stand holding hands and sing kumbaya with the Iraqis and other people.

We sometimes needed (or need) a draft because there are people everywhere you turn that think any kind of war is wrong. They just can't understand that sometimes lives must be taken to save lives. Eventually I ask most people I know if they're going to join the military. Most of the ones I ask who say no say that it's "not their thing" or "there's already enough people to kill each other". Both of these kind of responses make me sick. I think that every straight male who is physically and mentally able should serve in the military, I don't think that we should have to make them.

It's so sad that today some people are too afraid to stand up and possibly die for their country, their freedom, and their families' freedom. Brave American men have done it for over two centuries--what if they had said that it's "not their war"? We'd be speaking German, Japanese, or Spanish by now.

It's just like these people that say they don't have to stand up and say the pledge because it infringes on their freedom. Men died so that they could sit in a classroom and learn today, the LEAST they can do is stand up and say a pledge to their country for thirty seconds a day.

*whew* It's tough being an angry conservative these days...:)

[RickSp]

Quote by: James The main reason a draft is needed when it is is the liberal media and all the crazies like Cindy Sheehan who think that we can all stand holding hands and sing kumbaya with the Iraqis and other people. We sometimes needed (or need) a draft because there are people everywhere you turn that think any kind of war is wrong. They just can't understand that sometimes lives must be taken to save lives. Eventually I ask most people I know if they're going to join the military. Most of the ones I ask who say no say that it's "not their thing" or "there's already enough people to kill each other". Both of these kind of responses make me sick. I think that every straight male who is physically and mentally able should serve in the military, I don't think that we should have to make them. It's so sad that today some people are too afraid to stand up and possibly die for their country, their freedom, and their families' freedom. Brave American men have done it for over two centuries--what if they had said that it's "not their war"? We'd be speaking German, Japanese, or Spanish by now. It's just like these people that say they don't have to stand up and say the pledge because it infringes on their freedom. Men died so that they could sit in a classroom and learn today, the LEAST they can do is stand up and say a pledge to their country for thirty seconds a day. *whew* It's tough being an angry conservative these days...:)

James, given that you are only a punk kid, I will not be insulted by the foolish blather of this post. If you are dim witted enough to think that opposition to a needless and immoral war has anything to do with cowardice or a lack of patriotism, well that is your problem, not mine. Mybe you'll actually learn a little about life after your skin clears up. Or not.

[Sonart]

Quote by: James The main reason a draft is needed when it is is the liberal media and all the crazies like Cindy Sheehan who think that we can all stand holding hands and sing kumbaya with the Iraqis and other people. It's so sad that today some people are too afraid to stand up and possibly die for their country, their freedom, and their families' freedom. Brave American men have done it for over two centuries--what if they had said that it's "not their war"? We'd be speaking German, Japanese, or Spanish by now. *whew* It's tough being an angry conservative these days

{{Sigh}} Certainly tough being a clueless one. Did you think we'd all end up speaking Iraqi? Has it yet dawned on you that Iraq was never a threat to us or your beloved freedoms for which brave Americans needed to die? That Cindy Sheehan is simply the canary in the coal mine warning us that the majority of Americans have lost confidence in the justification for this endless conflict or the Bush administration's handling of it?

Yes, sometimes we need to wage war. Other times we need to know when NOT to wage war, but apparently 'ol "Bring 'em on, Dead or Alive" Dubya doesn't know the difference. As I've stated, I supported Desert Storm from the gitgo. I supported the intervention in Somolia, although it turned out to be a demonstration of the limits of military superpower. I supported the intervention in the Balkans and I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. In other words, I'm not a knee-jerk Peacenik.

But I opposed the war in Iraq from day one because it was a really BAD IDEA militarily, an invitation to quagmire that history has shown we could never hope to win and now can't get out of, which will sap our military indefinitely as long as we stay. And now, 2 and a half years into Bush's debacle, the American people are finally figuring out what we, Bush's CIA and State Dept intel, his senior military, and his own father were warning all along.... that we can't pin our military down in the heart of Muslim darkness, surrounded on three sides by hostile populations who have developed terrorism to an artform, where the enemy is unidentifiable, nowhere and everywhere, and actually think we're going to win simply because we're a SuperPower raised on John Wayne and Rambo movies.

And to make matters vastly worse, the very reasons for getting into this war have been found to have been totally bogus... as bad as Saddam was, we now know that Bush was dead wrong, that Hussein was a threat to no one but his own people, with no WMD and no connection to the people who attacked us on 9/11.

And THAT'S where the draft question becomes an issue... in a war which 60% of Americans now believe was a mistake yet still feel we have to keep plugging away, losing young soldiers day after day after day, we will have to continue finding new soldiers to continue maintaining that mistake. Where do those new soldiers come from? Because young men and women, and the families of young men and women, willing to die for a stupid mistake are already becoming fewer and farther between.

.

[Livemike]

Quote by: James The main reason a draft is needed when it is is the liberal media and all the crazies like Cindy Sheehan who think that we can all stand holding hands and sing kumbaya with the Iraqis and other people. We sometimes needed (or need) a draft because there are people everywhere you turn that think any kind of war is wrong.

So what? Maybe they're right. If they were the majority of the population then obviously the war would not last long in a democratic society. If they are not then it's not hard to recruit from the rest of the population. As for Sheenan being "crazy" what's crazy about believing that the Iraqis who want you out of their country will stop shooting at you when you are? At the very least Americans will be out of rifle/mortar range.

Quote by: James They just can't understand that sometimes lives must be taken to save lives. Eventually I ask most people I know if they're going to join the military. Most of the ones I ask who say no say that it's "not their thing" or "there's already enough people to kill each other". Both of these kind of responses make me sick. I think that every straight male who is physically and mentally able should serve in the military, I don't think that we should have to make them.

So it makes you sick that someone won't volunteer to kill whoever a corrupt vote-buying
liar says they should? Note that this is particularly the case now but any leader of a democratic State is such. If it is neccesary to take lives to save the innocent I'll do it, but I'll do it when I decide it's neccesary not when somebody else does.

Quote by: James It's so sad that today some people are too afraid to stand up and possibly die for their country, their freedom, and their families' freedom. Brave American men have done it for over two centuries--what if they had said that it's "not their war"?

For the most part American would be better off.

Quote by: James We'd be speaking German, Japanese, or Spanish by now.

Why? None of those nations had viable plans to invade the US.

Quote by: James It's just like these people that say they don't have to stand up and say the pledge because it infringes on their freedom. Men died so that they could sit in a classroom and learn today, the LEAST they can do is stand up and say a pledge to their country for thirty seconds a day.

Men died so that their children could sweat to kill people for no good reason? Because that's what the pledge of alligance is, a promise to kill people if the State finds itself in difficulties, regardless of whether these people did anything to deserve it. Of course getting children to swear such an oath is doubly amoral because of course they aren't mature enough to understand the implications even if they were explained to them, which they never are.

Quote by: James *whew* It's tough being an angry conservative these days...:)

Life's tough, it's twice as tough when you're stupid.

[Jack]

The draft was originally thought of as a way to ensure that there was a randomness in selecting who would be inducted into the military. Think of it like a negative lottery..."we picked your number! You lose!". If it had ever been applied fairly across the board, maybe it would have served that purpose. But differments made the draft a joke, just as I'm sure it would be again if we ever went back to it.
Joining the military has always been awkward for Americans. On one hand, we praise and glorify the young people who are willing to go fight and maybe die for their country. Yet young people too eager to take up a gun and go kill people scare the hell out of us. So the draft allowed us to pretend we were being fair and impartial in deciding who would serve. And to encourage enlistment after the draft ended, we thought we had to offer all kinds of goodies to get people to join; free medical, the G.I. Bill, V.A. loans, parades down Main Street, whatever it took. Then we realized that people wanted to enlist to get those benefits and the training. That's why the G.I. Bill got so watered down. We didn't need that carrot anymore.

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron If there's already a thread on this subject, please direct me to it, PatrickHenry If we live in a nation that follows capitalist principles, why do we consider forcing people to serve? Why shouldn't market forces determine a soldier's wage? Why pay a soldier at all? After all we provide them with free clothing, free chow, free medical benefits and free housing. Soldiers who join up don't join to make a lot of money. Rather they join to serve their country. To help out their countryment.....in short to serve. If conservatives firmly believe in capitalism, why are they the first to suggest a draft? The draft has nothing to do with capitalism. Communist and former communist countries draft you know. They still do. Russia does. We don't. If we can draft soldiers, is there a reason we cannot draft teachers? We have a shortage of good ones, and they also are vital to our country's continued livelihood.

I suppose that you could draft teachers, but don't you want well educated and dedicated teachers? You can take almost any strong, healthy man and make him into a soldier. Do you also think that you can take any smart, healthy person and make them a teacher? As an old teacher I don't think so. As an old soldier, I don't think so either.

[Logjam]

We need a draft only if our military committments cannot be met by the number of men who join up voluntarily.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Livemike The market finds solutions to problems that occur every 30 year or so all the time. In fact it finds solutions to problems that have never occured before and probably never will again. It does this so smoothly people forget that it anticipated the problems before they occured.

Now it does, since the depression ruined our entire nation.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Now it does, since the depression ruined our entire nation.

I say:
Or at least the governments "fix" to the Depression, ruined our nation, as do still its supporters.

[Logjam]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Now it does, since the depression ruined our entire nation.

The Great Depression did not come close to destroying our nation.

The damage caused by the Depression was sectional. Some areas did worse than others.

Many disguided college professions today teach that the Depression almost destroyed the nation, but when one talks to someone who experienced it they will tell you that it really wasn't so bad.

Those who claim that the depression was terrible are usually communists or socialists, who use their claim to disclaim capitalism.

Don't forget, most unemployment got only to 25% (albeit in some manufacturing regions it got much worse.) So, in general 75% of all workers were working. Income did go down, most workers made about 66% of what they had made before the "crash". We did have deflation, not a good sign, but we did alright.

Most folks whom you talk who experienced it report say, "Yeah, we knew about it and there were more hobos around, but it was something that we knew we'd get through. After all we had been through "hard times" before".

If you want to get a good feeling for contemporary reactions to the Great Depression go to the library and check out some of the bound copies of old Life magazines. You may have to read between the lines, but they are a good barometer for attitudes at the time.

But if you want to know who really suffered at the time? It was the Soviets. They starved in mass. We didn't experience starvation here.

My parents lived in the Dust Bowl during the entire depression. They had some stories about the era, but it didn't bother them too much.

[Logjam]

As a post script, the Carter economy was almost as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Unemployment was in the 20's. The difference between the two economies was that during the Carter recession/depression the banks didn't go broke. In the G Depressin they did, so the money supply was dramatically effected, and we experienced deflation.

There are more differences between the two economies, but the Carter adminsitration did reign during the worst economy that we had since the Great Depression.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam As a post script, the Carter economy was almost as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Unemployment was in the 20's. The difference between the two economies was that during the Carter recession/depression the banks didn't go broke. In the G Depressin they did, so the money supply was dramatically effected, and we experienced deflation. There are more differences between the two economies, but the Carter adminsitration did reign during the worst economy that we had since the Great Depression.

You just make this stuff up right? Unemployment during the Carter administration averaged 6.65% which was lower than during the Ford administration. Presidential Elections and the Economy

The Carter recession was short lived unlike the Great Depression which was a decade long. The Great Depression caused deflation while the Carter administration had particularly ugly inflation.

[Protostar]

Alright guys enough with the insults, I'm talking to you RickSP and Livemike. James is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. Just because it does not line up with yours does not make him a "punk" or "stupid".