View Full Forums : An argument for the Draft
Panamah
09-07-2006, 01:01 PM
I like this idea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060905/cm_csm/yglick
*All able-bodied and able-minded 18-year-old men and women should have their names placed in a lottery. Depending on how many soldiers are needed - typically just a few thousand each year - a modest percentage would be drafted.
*Then, the names of all those who didn't get drafted should be placed into a lottery for nonmilitary service in city or suburban slums, rural areas, native Americans reservations, or other poverty-stricken places.
*If the lottery puts draftees in a nonmilitary program - say, in healthcare - that requires more education and training than they possess, they could opt for getting that additional expertise in the civilian world. But then, the draftees would have to enter that nonmilitary program immediately after completing their studies.
If you're a conscientious objector, you go to the non-military program.
Aldarion_Shard
09-07-2006, 02:09 PM
I like it.
Tudamorf
09-07-2006, 02:19 PM
Never mind, the full article answered my question.
dedra
09-07-2006, 02:52 PM
A question to those of you who like this idea. Would you be eligible for the draft if it implemented?
Panamah
09-07-2006, 03:14 PM
Dedra, no. Would I have liked this idea if I were of the age? Hmmmm... I think I would have been of two minds.
If everyone grows up knowing that they're going to serve their country for a couple of years I think they'd probably feel like the Israelis do. Proud of their service. It also would be a good transition from childhood to adulthood. I haven't seen a lot of 18 year olds hitting the ground and running, ready to be adults and equipped with all the skills they need.
Older and wiser me thinks if everyone has a stake in the military action du jour that you're going to think long and hard about supporting military activities that aren't absolutely necessary and our leaders might not feel the cowboyish impulses to solve every problem with pistols blazing.
Younger me might be miffed about having to put off college for a bit. Younger me would have been worried that it would be hard to continue on the musical career path I was on at that time. But older me realizes that my obsession at that time ruled out a lot of other possibilities I would have been very well suited for, I might have caught onto those had I been pressed into service doing something completely different.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-07-2006, 04:29 PM
Conscripted troops is a HORRIBLE idea for a successful military.
It helps destroy morale.
Panamah
09-07-2006, 04:38 PM
Hmmm... weren't both the WW's fought with drafted troops?
dedra
09-07-2006, 04:57 PM
I have seen this same debate come up numerous times before on message boards. It's almost always the people that would not be eligible for the draft that think it's a terrific idea and people who would be eligible would oppose the draft. Amazing how that works out isn't it?
Aidon
09-07-2006, 05:20 PM
Israel manages to succeed with compulsory service because A) They are so small, with only 6 million people B) They've been in as many wars in the past 60 years as the US has been in, ever. C) The population realizes it is surrounded by people who would like to slaughter them because they are Jews.
Its a necessity for Israel, in its circumstances.
It is not a necessity for the US. Because its not necessary, compulsory service for the military is bad. It makes disgruntled soldiers who don't want to be there and don't care, and that is dangerous.
As for attempts to seperate military and non-military compulsory service...who's going to pay?
Sure it'd be nice to have battallions of young americans out doing...whatever the hell it is we'd make them do, but why? It won't be cheap...we'd have another agency with a budget similar to that of the militaries interrupting peoples lives doing jobs that probably don't need to be done that badly. If they do need to be done that badly, wouldn't it behoove us offer those jobs to the unemployed?
Tudamorf
09-07-2006, 05:39 PM
Israel manages to succeed with compulsory service because A) They are so small, with only 6 million people B) They've been in as many wars in the past 60 years as the US has been in, ever. C) The population realizes it is surrounded by people who would like to slaughter them because they are Jews.Dozens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conscription_Map.png) of countries in Eurasia, south America, and north Africa have mandatory military service, not just Israel. It's a question of cultural attitudes as much as one of necessity.
In the U.S., it would never work; we shouldn't even consider it so long as we can hire all of the soldiers we need.
Swiftfox
09-07-2006, 05:44 PM
Completely insane.
Aldarion_Shard
09-07-2006, 05:51 PM
I care less about the soldiering, and more about A) the valuable life experiance for young people and B) the sheer amount of good work that could be done.
If there is enough evidence supporting Fyyr's claim (which I have heard before, and I have to say it makes sense), then simply eliminate military service from the equation. But compulsory service for citizens is fundamentally a good idea, and would provide a valuable new source of workers for a wide variety of things. Send them to repair Katrina damage, etc.
Aidon
09-07-2006, 08:05 PM
I care less about the soldiering, and more about A) the valuable life experiance for young people and B) the sheer amount of good work that could be done.
If there is enough evidence supporting Fyyr's claim (which I have heard before, and I have to say it makes sense), then simply eliminate military service from the equation. But compulsory service for citizens is fundamentally a good idea, and would provide a valuable new source of workers for a wide variety of things. Send them to repair Katrina damage, etc.
Who are we to demand compulsory service, now that we're past the age where it'd be mandatory?
Were you forced to serve your country? Forcing people to 'serve their country' except in times of dire need isn't going to engender any great patriotism or well wishing for our government amongst the youth. It will, however, encourage crappy construction amongst a group of unskilled laborers who don't want to be there doing that, anyways.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-07-2006, 09:54 PM
If there is enough evidence supporting Fyyr's claim (which I have heard before, and I have to say it makes sense), then simply eliminate military service from the equation. But compulsory service for citizens is fundamentally a good idea, and would provide a valuable new source of workers for a wide variety of things. Send them to repair Katrina damage, etc.
Don't get me wrong.
I think that military or community service should be mandatory to be able to vote. I think that is a great motivator.
Increasing the pay of military personnel comes even before that.
Regarding evidence, I don't need a scientific study(funded by taxpayers) to tell me something blatently obvious like that. Viet Nam is a perfect scientific study, if you really want one.
Using public monies to rebuild a city, that normally exists in abject poverty, is built 20 feet below sea level, and is in the delta of one of the worlds largest rivers is just plain stupid.
You know who should be building there?, Jar Jar Binks, cuz the only thing that should be built there is some kind of Gundam Aquatopia. And if the US taxpayers are going to be paying for these things, I want mine in the Monterey Bay, to look at all the cool fishes and stuff, and I can go scuba diving and snow skiing in the same day(Lake Tahoe would be good too). And I hope you don't mind picking up the additional tab of putting in shock absorber legs on mine, cause of earthquakes.
I want people in the military who want to be in the military. Having employees who don't want to be there, is a matter of common sense.
The countries listed with mandatory conscription, say Switzerland never go to war anyways. And one can pay a tax to get out of service regardless, Albert Einstein did that. And the country which pretty much needs it, Isreal, pretty much needs universal mandatory conscription, because of the real and actual threat they have there.
B_Delacroix
09-08-2006, 08:28 AM
The issue I have I think i stated before. A volunteer force means you have people who believe in what they are there for and will work harder to protect their country and way of life.
Forced labor means you will have a decrease in quality because they really don't want to be there.
People from here volunteered to go help clean up Katrina damage. The bureaucracy kept them sitting somewhere for three months doing nothing. It wasn't for lack of volunteers.
Thicket Tundrabog
09-08-2006, 10:22 AM
Compulsory military or alternate service is a terrible idea, except under exceptional circumstances (World Wars, Israel, but not Vietnam).
In my opinion, there is currently no need for any European or North American country to have compulsory service. I believe that a voluntary military is a defining characteristic of a free nation.
No, I'm not of military age, unless they start drafting old farts.
Panamah
09-08-2006, 08:42 PM
So you don't have any problem with primarily poor people being the ones to fight the wars?
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-08-2006, 10:07 PM
So you don't have any problem with primarily poor people being the ones to fight the wars?
NO! Not at all.
As long as it is their choice. And not compulsory.
Service guarantees citizenship!
MadroneDorf
09-09-2006, 03:45 AM
hah i was going to quote that too...
I love that movie
Jinjre
09-09-2006, 09:57 AM
Israel manages to succeed with compulsory service because A) They are so small, with only 6 million people B) They've been in as many wars in the past 60 years as the US has been in, ever. C) The population realizes it is surrounded by people who would like to slaughter them because they are Jews.
How does that explain why the same system works so well in Switzerland?
How does that explain why the same system works so well in Switzerland?
A military that never goes to war is probably the best military to serve in.
Panamah
09-09-2006, 12:18 PM
Hmmm... it is choice I suppose. Go into the military, have semi-reasonable pay, decent lodgings, get some free vocational training and a steady paycheck or continue to compete for too few unskilled, low-paying jobs.
How to recruit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html)
All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.
"A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the NPP, based in Northampton, Mass.
The problem is, if everyone doesn't have an iron in the fire, it isn't America that is at war. It is the poor, uneducated people's war. Even worse than the people who take us into war not actually having to participate is that their kids, their neighbors kids, no one they know personally, has to participate.
If you didn't have a TV, radio or newspaper, would you know we were at war?
War shouldn't be so easy that you can forget about it for weeks or months at a time or not really have it impact your life at all.
Aidon
09-09-2006, 01:02 PM
Its the trade off Pan.
When we're not at war....those same 'poor kids' get what amounts to a paid education.
They have volunteered to risk the dangers of a potential war for the opportunity to better themselves. Good for them.
And shame on you, for trying to take that opportunity away from them just to punish some 'rich kids' now that you're safely beyond the age you would have to worry about it.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-09-2006, 04:38 PM
hah i was going to quote that too...
I love that movie
I love the concept.
dedra
09-11-2006, 11:42 AM
And shame on you, for trying to take that opportunity away from them just to punish some 'rich kids' now that you're safely beyond the age you would have to worry about it.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Panamah
09-11-2006, 12:11 PM
And shame on you, for trying to take that opportunity away from them just to punish some 'rich kids' now that you're safely beyond the age you would have to worry about it.
Not sure I see how it takes it away from the poor. They can still enlist, or be drafted. Laws are made by people not exactly the age their affected. How many people in congress are drawing SSI and using Medicare? Zero. Yet they make laws about that all the time. How many in congress have ever lived on food stamps? Yet somehow they manage to make laws about things they're currently not.
Gunny Burlfoot
09-11-2006, 01:29 PM
I love the concept.
Me too. I'd be willing to hump it at age 34 for being a Citizen, instead of a civilian. (though, I'd make sure I got OCS in whatever branch.)
Sign Heinlein's vision of the future up today!
And the book was much better than the movie.. much more detail on the Citizen/civilian concept. And in both the movie and the book, they took any age I believe. No more grow-old-and-get-off-easy!
You only need 6 pounds of finger strength to shoot a gun.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-11-2006, 01:36 PM
Me too. I'd be willing to hump it at age 34 for being a Citizen, instead of a civilian. (though, I'd make sure I got OCS in whatever branch.)
I saw a Reserve recruiter on Thursday. For my field they take up to age 52.
MadroneDorf
09-11-2006, 02:20 PM
the movie was more of a farce on the book, but I still enjoyed the movie a lot.
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.