The draft
- Thread starter jvd
- Start date
Other countries figured out that slavery thing faster than America, nothing to brag about there. I'm not rebellious either, I just think differently. I'm not a dogmatic right winger.
Oh look at that, I can throw around labels too in an attempt to weaken an arguement through fallacy.
There is an implication in your words. The government will make the right decision. I disagree, though there is a representative democracy, that doesn't mean it's the rule. That is to say it will not always represent individual, the majority of individuals, all the individuals or the truth all the time or any of them at any point in time. The government isn't always working for the best interest of the poeple, it's fairly easy to hide stuff from those that either trust the government too much and from others who are too busy tuned into tunnel visioned media.
I see no reason women can't be drafted.
For one, the "women are more necessary than men for rebuilding the population" thing is bullshit. It's bullshit for two reasons, the first being that our population isn't going to need rebuilding after any modern war. We've got what, 300 million people in the U.S.? How many died in World War II, 300 thousand? 0.1 percent of our current population. And that was with massive close range infantry combat in numerous countries all over the world. That kind of fighting doesn't even exist anymore. The second reason it's bullshit is that it takes exactly 2 people to create a child. One man, one woman. They're equally important to the reproductive cycle. The fact that the man can impregnate multiple women during one gestation period is irrelavent both because such conduct is viewed as immoral and irresponsable in our current society (and if we're willing to give up morality like that as a result of war, what are we fighting to protect?), and because a small number of men impregnating a large number of women significantly reduces the size of the gene pool. And if your population is going to decrease to the point where you need to start worrying about rebuilding it, you're going to have to worry about genetic implications as well. Not that it would ever get to that point. Also, you wouldn't want a massive flood of children in the same generation. Especially in this day and age when there's a shortage of skilled teachers, educational funding, and when most families don't have a stereotypical housewife to take care of the children like they did in the 50's.
The other reason I see no reason to exclude women from the draft, is that being drafted doesn't mean you have to be an infantry unit toting a rifle on the front line. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military branches, and women are just as capable of doing most of them as men are.
But honestly I'd rather not have a draft. I don't think it's necessary. I think the financial incentives for recruits draw more than enough people into the military as it is. Just look at all the reservists we have getting activated in anticipation of this conflict. There are already over 200,000 full time and reserve troops in the gulf region. If we need more people than that to liberate Iraq, we don't need to draft more troops, we need to figure out why our tactics are getting the all of our troops killed.
In an age when technology has taken over the majority of combat, the draft is an ancient war relic that we can do without. If the government is really desperate for support, they should draft dollars, not people. Ask people to buy bonds, etc. so we can build more smart bombs and cruise missles. Why throw lives into a war when you can just as easily throw money and have the same impact? I think you'd be suprised how many people would rather buy $5,000 worth of savings bonds than be drafted, or have their loved ones drafted.
For one, the "women are more necessary than men for rebuilding the population" thing is bullshit. It's bullshit for two reasons, the first being that our population isn't going to need rebuilding after any modern war. We've got what, 300 million people in the U.S.? How many died in World War II, 300 thousand? 0.1 percent of our current population. And that was with massive close range infantry combat in numerous countries all over the world. That kind of fighting doesn't even exist anymore. The second reason it's bullshit is that it takes exactly 2 people to create a child. One man, one woman. They're equally important to the reproductive cycle. The fact that the man can impregnate multiple women during one gestation period is irrelavent both because such conduct is viewed as immoral and irresponsable in our current society (and if we're willing to give up morality like that as a result of war, what are we fighting to protect?), and because a small number of men impregnating a large number of women significantly reduces the size of the gene pool. And if your population is going to decrease to the point where you need to start worrying about rebuilding it, you're going to have to worry about genetic implications as well. Not that it would ever get to that point. Also, you wouldn't want a massive flood of children in the same generation. Especially in this day and age when there's a shortage of skilled teachers, educational funding, and when most families don't have a stereotypical housewife to take care of the children like they did in the 50's.
The other reason I see no reason to exclude women from the draft, is that being drafted doesn't mean you have to be an infantry unit toting a rifle on the front line. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military branches, and women are just as capable of doing most of them as men are.
But honestly I'd rather not have a draft. I don't think it's necessary. I think the financial incentives for recruits draw more than enough people into the military as it is. Just look at all the reservists we have getting activated in anticipation of this conflict. There are already over 200,000 full time and reserve troops in the gulf region. If we need more people than that to liberate Iraq, we don't need to draft more troops, we need to figure out why our tactics are getting the all of our troops killed.
In an age when technology has taken over the majority of combat, the draft is an ancient war relic that we can do without. If the government is really desperate for support, they should draft dollars, not people. Ask people to buy bonds, etc. so we can build more smart bombs and cruise missles. Why throw lives into a war when you can just as easily throw money and have the same impact? I think you'd be suprised how many people would rather buy $5,000 worth of savings bonds than be drafted, or have their loved ones drafted.
The voluntary army of the US is the way to go for the near future. If for some reason we have a situation where we need to have an army into millions-ten of millions, then we might need to look at the draft. Right now i want my army to be composed of people who want to be there. So lets not ruin the army by putting people who dont want to be there. I know this will cause the army to be full of low income people, and not have as many rich influencatial people, but so what.
On another note, we live in a republic not a democracy.Kudos to vince and joe for stating as much. I wish people would learn this in school. (or shows how bad the school system is if they dont know this.) I dont want my govermnent to be run by polls. Look at what at the top shows in the US right now: "are you hot", "joe millionare", "american idol". Come on i dont want life and death decisions to be made by these people
. Id rather it be made by some smart SOBs.
later,
On another note, we live in a republic not a democracy.Kudos to vince and joe for stating as much. I wish people would learn this in school. (or shows how bad the school system is if they dont know this.) I dont want my govermnent to be run by polls. Look at what at the top shows in the US right now: "are you hot", "joe millionare", "american idol". Come on i dont want life and death decisions to be made by these people
. Id rather it be made by some smart SOBs.later,
Leeches, eh? Vince, are you aware that you are dangerously close to Nazi terminology?
Anyway, I am kinda curious what sort of animal you would compare a person to whose family connections provided him with the opportunity to heroically defend Texas against the Vietcong while poor man's kids had to die in the jungle.
Anyway, I am kinda curious what sort of animal you would compare a person to whose family connections provided him with the opportunity to heroically defend Texas against the Vietcong while poor man's kids had to die in the jungle.
The draft is an anachronism. In today's Western world, people are no longer interchangable components. We are highly specialized and trained for 20+ years from early age and end up doing a few things very well, and most everything else, poorly.
It wouldn't make any more sense to draft an obese or scrawny computer science geek and send him into battle than it would to draft him as a heart transplant surgeon. The military is far more efficient having those guys work on building software for planes, missile defense, or curing diseases, and in general, keeping the economy going so that the US can afford its awesome arsenal. The idea of making everyone a soldier reminds me of that utterly stupid Marxism 2.0 "participatory economics" stuff there everyone is forced to be a janitor, ceo, assembly line, and other positions, all for fairness and balance. Thus, everyone does a crappy job cause no one builds any expertise.
Our military isn't designed to be fair or democratic. It is designed to fight and win wars, and if that means, some must people fight, and other people must make coffee, then that's what we have to do. More lives will be saved because of it, despite the "unfairness" of it. Even within the military, is it unfair that the Marines are sent in on much more dangerous missions than people sitting on naval destroyers? Are people who join the coast guard, yellow bellied cowards trying to avoid the frontlines?
The draft produces cannon fodder. People who don't want to fight, are sent on a crash course thru a few weeks of training, dropped off in combat, and if they survive, they go back to being civilians. There is no long term benefit or knowledge retained.
Our professional/volunteer army works way better. #1, it produces people whose entire career is military training, thinking, and fighting. #2, the people who join, atleast many of the US'es best troops, are highly motivated. The guys in the Special Forces, or Rangers, Airborne, etc divisions are not there for salary or college tuition, they are there because they like that stuff, just like there are people who like extreme sports for the thrill.
Just look at the US Military recruitment commercials. They are tailored to people who like base jumping, and Vin Diesel.
It wouldn't make any more sense to draft an obese or scrawny computer science geek and send him into battle than it would to draft him as a heart transplant surgeon. The military is far more efficient having those guys work on building software for planes, missile defense, or curing diseases, and in general, keeping the economy going so that the US can afford its awesome arsenal. The idea of making everyone a soldier reminds me of that utterly stupid Marxism 2.0 "participatory economics" stuff there everyone is forced to be a janitor, ceo, assembly line, and other positions, all for fairness and balance. Thus, everyone does a crappy job cause no one builds any expertise.
Our military isn't designed to be fair or democratic. It is designed to fight and win wars, and if that means, some must people fight, and other people must make coffee, then that's what we have to do. More lives will be saved because of it, despite the "unfairness" of it. Even within the military, is it unfair that the Marines are sent in on much more dangerous missions than people sitting on naval destroyers? Are people who join the coast guard, yellow bellied cowards trying to avoid the frontlines?
The draft produces cannon fodder. People who don't want to fight, are sent on a crash course thru a few weeks of training, dropped off in combat, and if they survive, they go back to being civilians. There is no long term benefit or knowledge retained.
Our professional/volunteer army works way better. #1, it produces people whose entire career is military training, thinking, and fighting. #2, the people who join, atleast many of the US'es best troops, are highly motivated. The guys in the Special Forces, or Rangers, Airborne, etc divisions are not there for salary or college tuition, they are there because they like that stuff, just like there are people who like extreme sports for the thrill.
Just look at the US Military recruitment commercials. They are tailored to people who like base jumping, and Vin Diesel.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html
guess the cia still thinks there can be a draft if worse comes to worse...
woo canada can weild an army of over 8 million!... I suddenly feel... POWERFUL... muhahahaha!
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 8,361,475 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 7,139,068 (2002 est.)
guess the cia still thinks there can be a draft if worse comes to worse...
woo canada can weild an army of over 8 million!... I suddenly feel... POWERFUL... muhahahaha!
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 8,361,475 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 7,139,068 (2002 est.)
here is the stats for china:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 370,087,489 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 203,003,036 (2002 est.)
later,
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 370,087,489 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 203,003,036 (2002 est.)
later,
no disrespect to china but what are they going to do come at us with bambo sticks ? Mabye in another 10 or 20 years we will have to worry about thier massive numbers but not now. They can't arm themselves.
I asked this question because I'm a 21 year old male and I feel like I'm starting to become more discreminated(sp?) against than women. Heh I also have another question to ask but i will wait till piss people off another day
I asked this question because I'm a 21 year old male and I feel like I'm starting to become more discreminated(sp?) against than women. Heh I also have another question to ask but i will wait till piss people off another day
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Reverend said:
Actually, I think you said that you'd ban religious discussions. Look like you're branching into political ones too?
Methinks that at least politics and religion are a more valid reason for having "heated" discussion, than say, game consoles. Perhaps that discussion group should be the first target for heavy handed moderation?
DemoCoder said:
This is missing the point, being that in the highly unlikely scenario that the Constitution is in danger of elimination via external force - all citizens, as citizens, have a responcibility to defend the state. Of course, nobody is advocating instituting the draft now or for anything less than a true national threat.
As for you're example, during Vietnam several of the most preeminent theoretical physicists and mathmaticians were drafted and served their duty. Most were given leave, but they went threw basic, ect.
Saem, you have some problems with comprehension of our societal structure in the United States that need to be resolved before you can have an educated debate on this topic. Here's a start: The US is a federalist republic.
Um, alrighty. Compare me to a Nazi again... A leech is a parasitic animal that lifes off a host entity, at the expense of the host entity without any upside to the host entity.
This is what he's advocated, except the host entity is a nation-state. Don't like the comparason, then don't get mad at me - perhaps it's time to look inside and see what, and who, you really are.
Rev said:
Ohh, I see. So, nobody gives a "Flying f*ck" concerning their civic duty and allegience to their country if it could have a negative impact on their own life? But, give me some more social-programs and more freebees that the government provides. I love the position Rev, says alot.
If the shoe fits - deal with it. I explained the parasitic leech example and how someone who enjoys the freedoms and liberties of a nation-state, yet refuses to defend these same freedoms if the costs are too great in such a selfish manner is comperable to a parasitic animal who drains the resources of a host entity without any upside - if you disaprove, ask yourself why.
&
Appearently, if you strategically add "GeForceFX" and "Radeon9700" to you're conversation - it neutralizes any of the other extremely biased and hatefull comments found in damn near ever thread in the 3D forum. Makes sence to me, lets argue venemously if a chunck of silicon thats 10*10mm has a 4*2 or 8*1 architecture - but not about actual, tangible arguments that concern things much greater.
A question for the american ultra right wings
This is a question for the ones that are ultra right wings? (those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor).
To what point you would think that a person who protest against a govenrnamental decision, in the form of a law for exemple, should be considered a betreyor of this country ?
Like (an absurd situation), if it the US government used the draft only with black people and latin people, shouldn't they complain ? Or should they asked to leave the country ?
This is a question for the ones that are ultra right wings? (those who think that if anyone that don't follow every government decision, is a leech or betrayor).
To what point you would think that a person who protest against a govenrnamental decision, in the form of a law for exemple, should be considered a betreyor of this country ?
Like (an absurd situation), if it the US government used the draft only with black people and latin people, shouldn't they complain ? Or should they asked to leave the country ?
Vince said:
That is not the definition of what a leech is, merely your opinion of it. Actually leeches can be quite beneficial to the host. They have been used for ages to cure various ailments, and are still used today in reconstructive and cosmetic surgery.
Your comment also suggests that people who do not join the military in defense of our country do nothing but drain economic resources without any contribution. This is untrue. A person who is not in the military can still be a productive member of the economy, a valuable member of society, and a true citizen of the country. Exactly where do you think the country and it's economy would be without the commercial and educational contributions these people make? And where do you think the military would be without the discoveries and manufactured products from these people? The military doesn't make their own weapons and equipment. Advances in military technology have come largely from those not in the military. To say these people are contributing nothing simply because they don't want to enlist in the armed services is rediculous. But you're probably right, a 35 year old senior engineer would be much more productive trying to kluge equipment to gether under the command of a 20 year old high school drop out, than he would in a private corporation with a government contract to supply the innovative technical equiment required to make that 20 year old high school drop out worth a damn on the battlefield.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Re: A question for the american ultra right wings
You really think that obeying laws makes someone an ultra-right winger?!
There is a big difference between protesting a decision, and not following / being in compliance with a decision once it's been made. I think that distinction is being lost somewhere.
I have no problems with people protesting a draft, or protesting any other issue. That is the American way, and is also the "duty" of the citizens to make their voices known. However, I do have problems with people who, once a decision is made / law passed, take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they will follow it.
Example: I think the laws are structued in such a way that I am required to pay entirely too much taxes. That doesn't mean I don't pay them. I DO pay them, and at the same time, protest that payment.
Yes, that is absurd. But to humor you...they should complain if they think they are being treated unfairly. But they should also follow the law.
Mod said:
You really think that obeying laws makes someone an ultra-right winger?!
There is a big difference between protesting a decision, and not following / being in compliance with a decision once it's been made. I think that distinction is being lost somewhere.
I have no problems with people protesting a draft, or protesting any other issue. That is the American way, and is also the "duty" of the citizens to make their voices known. However, I do have problems with people who, once a decision is made / law passed, take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they will follow it.
Example: I think the laws are structued in such a way that I am required to pay entirely too much taxes. That doesn't mean I don't pay them. I DO pay them, and at the same time, protest that payment.
Yes, that is absurd.
But to humor you...they should complain if they think they are being treated unfairly. But they should also follow the law.Continuing the absurdity: apartheid was law in South Africa, segregation was law in the Southern US states and (yes) slavery used to be law throughout most of the world. Should these laws have been followed?
Ignoring that aside, I assume that another possible 'draft' is being mooted in the States? It's the only reason I can think of for this topic so I'll have to guess this is the case or is it just the press talking rubbish as usual?
LittlePenny
Regular
Vince, I am curious as to what your age is?
Silent_One
Newcomer
Crusher wrote:
n.
Any of various chiefly aquatic bloodsucking or carnivorous annelid worms of the class Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly used by physicians to bleed patients and is now sometimes used as a temporary aid to circulation during surgical reattachment of a body part.
One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.
Archaic A physician.
v. leeched, leech·ing, leech·es
v. tr.
To bleed with leeches.
To drain the essence or exhaust the resources of.
v. intr.
To attach oneself to another in the manner of a leech.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0100300.html
leech
n.
Any of various chiefly aquatic bloodsucking or carnivorous annelid worms of the class Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly used by physicians to bleed patients and is now sometimes used as a temporary aid to circulation during surgical reattachment of a body part.
One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.
Archaic A physician.
v. leeched, leech·ing, leech·es
v. tr.
To bleed with leeches.
To drain the essence or exhaust the resources of.
v. intr.
To attach oneself to another in the manner of a leech.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0100300.html
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Yes. Laws should be followed, or go somewhere else that doesn't have the law that you will not follow.
But again, you can still protest the law, while at the same time respect / abide by it. You can certainly work to get it changed, but you should abide by it while doing so.
If you detested slavery...don't own slaves. If you couldn't stand the fact that it was legal in "your state", move to another state. Or alternatively, work to change the law.
Similar threads
