Poll: The Draft

[Trace2010]

1) Unwilling soldiers DO make dead soldiers- the problem is it's usually someone else that dies.
2) You CAN be an objector and still do your job.
3) If my country asks of me, I would go gladly- my grandfather went into Guadalcanal without asking "why" or "what purpose does this serve?"- all the more true considering the only thing anyone ever considers "evil" about WWII around here and now is Adolf Hitler. Besides, that debt is mine to pay should my country ever need my assistance.
4) Keep in mind, the people of the greatest generation were not warriors; they were small towners: farmers and factory workers and coal miners that had the same conceptions and arguments to face as the people of America do today (don't waste my time arguing about this--inventions of modern technology in their time gave them no more comfort, and just as much fear [think about the U-Boat, as one], as ours do now). And, just like today, there were just as many political doves trying to justify the concepts of isolationism and appeasement (even after Pearl Harbor was hit). Just maybe, this is why they call that the "Greatest Generation".

 

[searanox]

Fighting in any war is idiotic, unless the alternative is death or a life of hardship and torture. The United States does not fight any wars it knows it cannot win, so there is no reason to serve it.

 

[Fret098]

Pshhh if there was a draft I would just head back to Ireland

 

[MarcusStrout]

Well, the draft would turn a lot of heads, but not mine, since I am already all ready to go into the U.S. Air Force in Cryptology, so it's really not my place for that.

I really don't have much to say on the military. It's full of opportunity, all pointing at something (WAR) that wouldn't happen otherwise.

 

[John Galt]

That...that was beautiful there bigcountry.

 

[axia777]

The Draft is a Democrat thing

This is as retarded a statement as I have ever read one.

What was that? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the one who first started the Draft in 1940, as well as the Selective Service System. It was Nixon (Republican) who ended the draft and Ford (another Republican) who ended the Selective Service System. Carter, a Democrat, was the one who reinstated the Selective Service Act in 1980.

Now, it may not be wholly a Democrat thing, but large parts of it certainly are, thus making bigcountry's statement not 'retarded' in the least.

As if Republicans in The Senate and The House did not support it. Come on, be realistic here. The Draft back then got support form both parties, not just Democrats. This is not just a Presidential thing. If Republicans wanted to stop the Draft from happening then they most likely could have, one way or another. So yes, it is retarded.

According to the Senate.gov:
the 65th Congress (the one in 1917) was majority DEMOCRAT
the 77th Congress (in 1942) was 2/3rds majority DEMOCRAT
the 81st Congress (in 1950) was majority DEMOCRAT
the 88th - 89th (1963 - 1969) Congresses were 2/3rds majority DEMOCRAT, and throughout the rest of the veitnam war 90th and 91st Congresses were majority DEMOCRAT

From the Hosue.gov (House of representatives):
(1917 WWI) - 230 DEMOCRATS 196 republicans DEMOCRAT MAJORITY (republicans could not have defeated that draft as the DEMOCRATS held the house, senate, and presidency) that's one for me.

(1942 WWII) - 267 DEMOCRATS 162 republicans (republicans could not have defeated that draft as the DEMOCRATS held the house, senate, and presidency) that's two for me.

(1950 Korean War) - 263 DEMOCRATS 171 republicans (republicans could not have defeated that draft as the DEMOCRATS held the house, senate, and presidency) that is three for me.

(1963 - 69 Veitnam War) 1963 - 263 DEMOCRATS 174 republicans
1965 (the new house is every two years) - 295 DEMOCRATS 140 republicans
1967 - 247 DEMOCRATS 187 republicans
1969 - 243 DEMOCRATS 192 republicans
(republicans could not have defeated that draft as the DEMOCRATS held the house, senate, and presidency) that is 4/4 for me.



Yet that is one of the most retarded things you have EVER read.

Simple voting along party lines would have prevented the republicans from stopping any of the drafts that I have mentioned, so not its not retarded at all. PWND!

I think this shows that you should put down that glass of democrat kool-aid you are drinking, axia777.

Please provide sources.

And if that is true then it proves that Democrats were what? In the majority for voting to go to war for WWI and WWII? How is that bad? Those were not the wars I was talking about at at all. I was referring to post WWII wars. That is what the disagreement was about.

As for the Korean War, did the Republicans support it or not? That is the question. If not then yes, the Democrats were the sole party responsible. If they DID support then no, the Democrats were not the sole party responsible. The same goes for Vietnam. That I KNOW the Republicans supported. So how am I PWND? We were disagreeing if the Democrats were the sole party responsible for the wars. Which I know they were not. We were not disagreeing about majorities. That is changing the subject. Also, none of that proves which part instated the Draft for any of those wars. A lot more information is needed.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I would join the air force in a heart beat if the draft where reinstated the reason I'm not in now is there is more money in the private sector . I'm surprised at the amount that would just flat out refuse to serve I find that mildly disturbing or maybe just strange I'm not sure yet haha.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Wow...
I, as a proud American, am disgusted by what this poll has shown. As free men we have the responsiblity to serve the gorvernment that helps protect and enforce those freedoms. So, should a draft be instituted, a good deal of brave men and women along with myself will go off and die for a cause while you cowards rot in your own excriment..

The draft is comparable to slavery and basically unconsitutional effectivly you want to protect the freedom of the government to enslave its own population in a way thats comparable to just sending them off to die. Go Freedom!

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In every last conflict we've ever fought in, there were people being oppressed and we stepped in on the right side.

[incoherent frenzy] AAAARGH!!!!!!!! INACCURATE....HISTORY!!!!! MY EYES!!!!! MAKE IT STOP, MAKE IT STOP!!!


VIETNAM/INDOCHINA RING A BELL!?

THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR!?

YOUR OWN GOD-DAMNED CIVIL WAR!?

THE FACT YOU NEVER JOINED EITHER WORLD WAR UNTIL YOU COULD BE SURE OF WINNING!?

THE RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR!?

AND THAT YOUR COMMANDER IN KOREA WANTED TO INVADE CHINA WITH ATOMIC WEAPONS!!?[/inchoerent frenzy]

Okay, I'm calm now. But please stop pretending that Americais some sort of pinnacle of virtue, freedom and love shining in a sea of degradation and filth. Your another country. A big one at that, but your just as corrupt, evil, touchy and ham-handed as everyone else.

 

[Alex_P]

- Saddam NEVER had Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you still believe that crap I feel very sorry for you.

No, not "never." Hussein's regime used considerable quantities of chemical weapons -- many acquired from the West, some illegally, some with governments intentionally turning a blind eye -- during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1988, Saddam Hussein ordered the largest ever chemical attack against civilians [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack].

The pretext for the war was that Hussein's ability to threaten US interests in the Middle East (i.e. oil production and Israel) was growing. That was false: as far as we can tell, Hussein didn't have an elaborate and successful program for developing and manufacturing new CBRN weaponry, nor did he have huge stockpiles ready to be used or sold to terrorists or whatever.

It's a lie to say that Hussein never ever had chemical weapons or wasn't interested in developing new conventional and non-conventional military capabilities, however. Even with economic sanctions and UN inspectors reining it in, Hussein's government put a lot of effort into the development of all kinds of weapons (that's just what obsessive totalitarian dictators do); they just weren't very successful.

-- Alex

 

[Greever]

Haven't even read the other posts and probably will not. If there is a draft and you are eligible to serve and required then there is no question. You serve or go behind bars.

What is there to discuss?

 

[chronobreak]

If my country called on me to serve, of course I would. I've been living here my whole life, and the States has done a lot for me, I owe everything I have to the country. All the people that voted no, you think you'll just run to Canada or somewhere and not have to worry about it? Because if the US was ever invaded and taken, well, Canada would fold over like a panini. Then what would you do? And even if it didn't, draft dodgers aren't exactly looked upon kindly.

 

[shadow_pirate22]

If it was to defend our country, or an allies' country, or someone who's not technically an ally but we just REALLY hate the other side, from invasion, then I'd think about it. If it's another one of Bush's (or anyone else's) get rich quick schemes, then I'll get out of the country as fast as I can. If they block the airports, I'll swim.

 

[milomalo]

if it is to defend my country maybe i will do it or if "china" drop a bomb here i gladly will head there to take revenge (hehehe) but if it is for something stupid like conquer kualalumpur i will say no thanks...

 

[GothmogII]

Well, as I understand, the thing with a draft is that it's non-voluntary, so, what choice do you have in the matter? That said, I think I'd try and get a non-combatant position, medical, communications and such.

I will say though, the thought of a draft is quite scary to me, I'm glad my country is technically a neutral one.

Edit: Just reading up on the draft in relation to America, seems, while you don't have it technically, you do have something called the 'Selective Service System' which is: 'entails registering all males between the ages of 18 and 25 with the system for the purpose of having information available about potential soldiers in the event of war.' - from Wikipedia

Maybe someone else has mentioned it already in the topic, but, it seems like the same thing as the draft? However, reading on it, it seems to be more so for extreme cases, say a full on assault on America proper.