I read a letter to the editor in the Press of Atlantic City this morning. The woman who wrote the letter claimed that there is a bill going through the Senate right now, to reinstate the draft for men AND women between the ages of 18 and 26, and they are trying to keep it quiet until after the elections.
I can't find the letter on the Press of AC's website, and I can't find any recent articles on the subject.
But at the same time, I can see this happening, with the war in Iraq and Afganistan that's dragging on, and the general public not being very supportive of either.
Does anyone else know anything about this? Even if you don't, what do think would happen if it is really in the Senate and it does get passed?
It scares me--being a 22 year old woman in good health. I can't help but look at the people between the ages of 18 and 26 (being a college student, I know a lot), and think, what if this happens and they get drafted and have to die for something they don't believe in? What if I am drafted?
These are scary times.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
The bills to reinstate the draft are considered anti-war measures. I can't find the original call for these, but the basic reasoning was that public opinion is more likely to reign in the use of military force if non-vounteers were in the service.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
I guess it's not as bad as I thought, but you never know.
quote:The agency already has in place a special system to register and draft health care personnel age 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis. According to Flahavan, the agency will expand this system to be able to rapidly register and draft computer specialists and linguists, should the need ever arise. But he stressed that the agency has received no request from the Pentagon to do so.
They may not have yet--but what if they do? 20 to 44 is a wide age range, and I know lots of folks with computer skills.
That's really scary though, imagine, being 35 and settled into your life, and then the government comes along b/c you have some sort of skill they need and they press you into service, even though you may not want to.
I see that the article says that they are trying to put in incentives to join--but what if that doesn't work?
[ March 25, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Starla* ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Maybe it had to do with the fact that someone in the last administration released a lot of folks from their post-volunteer recall status. That is, for 6 years after your enlistment ends, you could be recalled. My husband was released and happened to be an Arabic Linguist. I'd say such a draft might could conceivably be to reclaim folks that the military actually trained.
The more information you give, I'd say this is EXACTLY what's going on here.
[ March 25, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Many people probably consider this barbaric, but I would actively oppose any effort to draft women.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was pretty sure that there was a bit of stuff sometime around the end of last year about President Bush's administration repopulating the draft boards. A quick google search gave me something at Salon.
I have also read analyses of the military situation that predict that, given the extended nature of current deployment and the uncertainty of when it will end, the military may be looking at a manpower shortage in the near future as less people choose to re-up in both regular military and reserves.
I obviously don't know a whole heck of alot about this, but those two things made me worried at the time. I still think, barring another large scale terrorist attack on American soil, that restarting the draft would be political suicide, but then so would running out of troops to fight what you have termed necessary wars.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
See S 89 and HR 163 Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
In our sales-oriented country, I see them trying to sweeten the military deal before they institute a draft. As noted, it would burden an already unpopular war with non-volunteers being sent into danger.
I am wondering, though...wasn't there a huge upswing in military enrollement after 9/11/01? I remember hearing about giant increases in people putting in for military jobs. What happened to that?
This wouldn't be a problem if the US government would put up the dough and listen to Skynet's ideas on a robotic military infrastructure...sheesh...
fil
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The idea of the draft itself is barbaric. The government has no right to force you to put your life on the line for the country. You might as well say the government has the right to kill people when it feels the need to.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Whoops...read Boon's links. Never mind. They are coming for us all. I think it is interesting that they put the language "including women" into it, as if saying "all young persons" might somehow omit them.
I would say coming for YOU all (young folks) but this new definition of "young" (18-44) makes me young again! Woohoo! Radical, dude.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: You might as well say the government has the right to kill people when it feels the need to.
fil
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Last time there was thoughts on reinstating the drat...the majority of the military didn't want a draft...they don't really see a reason to have that many people that don't want to be in the military to be in there...nor did they think they needed it. Satyagraha
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
We had a thread about this before which was focused on getting out of it.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
It wouldn't surprise me if they are looking - very behind the scenes - at reinstating the draft. I've heard in local news reports that up to twenty-five percent of reserves called up to active duty are planning on getting out as soon as they can due to the way they are being treated as far as being given one length of time that they are going to be away from home and then having that length of time extended again and again, separations when their obligation was up being suspended, and that sort of thing. If the military keeps doing this, they are going to be losing a lot more personnel.
These men and women often have families to take care of, and even though they want to serve their country, they are being asked to make sacrifices that the people in the administration who are ordering these things, you can be sure, are not willing to make themselves.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I personally don't believe the government has the right to force anyone to work for it, especially if that job has a moderate chance of getting you killed. What about if our country is under attack? Well, I suspect that plenty of people would be joining the military then. If a country can't raise an army large enough to defend itself from destruction without coercion, perhaps it should cease to exist. I know I'd at least stand out on my front lawn and throw rocks at any invaders. It worked for Pippin and Merry (well, until the Orcs captured them)!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If it's important enough, and there are too few soldiers, the country should just keep raising wages for soldiers until enough are willing to join. If we aren't willing to pay that much, it's obviously not that important to us, and we certainly shouldn't be willing to force people to give up their lives against their will.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:but this new definition of "young" (18-44) makes me young again
Where are they getting this 18-44 range? I read the senate/house bills that were linked to above, and they both still have the 18-26 usual draft age range...
Farmgirl
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Take the bill, light it on fire, and shove it up.....hey, hi. The comment made before about the military not wanting the draft is right. At least I don't. I have enough problems with the volunteers, what am I going to do with draftees? I don't want to think about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That is unlikely to change, although early this year Rep. Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat, proposed bringing back the draft to raise awareness about the war.
Rangel, who opposed the war in Iraq, hoped that the idea of bringing back the draft would help spur similar thoughts about the war, if not actions. But most say it had little effect on the student population.
Posted by karen.elizabeth (Member # 6345) on :
They keep telling my brother to register for the armed forces or he'll be forced to pay something like five (twenty-five? *shrugs*) thousand dollars in fines. My Bummy's too lazy to write to them and say, "Look, he's autistic!"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I should have mentioned, I caught that the first time through. I'm somewhat abivilent about the tactic. I sort of agree with the setiment, that only by making it relevant to people are they going to think seriously about the war. On the other hand, that's a pretty underhanded way to do it. I think Rangel should be ashamed of himself.
Still, I'm concerned about what has and is going to happen to our military in the environment of widespread military actions of indefinite ends. A lot of our force is built off of people who really never anticpated going into long term combat situations. Barring a significant increase in the benefits of being in the military, I'm not sure how long we can field enough people to achieve what we've been trying to achieve.
This isn't a problem I've heard discussed that much from the people who are going to have to deal with it if it occurs and I eas concerned when I heard the the Bush administration was quietly putting the mechanisms in place for reinstating the draft. Not so much for the draft itself, but more that, if that's their fall-back plan, I'm afraid that, after public outrage shuts that down, there isn't going to be any other plan.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Disabled men, clergymen, and men who believe themselves to be conscientiously opposed to war must register because there is no draft in effect, nor is there a program to classify men at this time. Should the Congress and the President reinstate a draft, a classification program would begin. Registrants would be examined to determine suitability for military service, and they would also have ample time to claim exemptions, deferments, or postponements. To be inducted, men would have to meet the physical, mental, and administrative standards established by the military services. Local Boards would meet in every American community to determine exemptions and deferments for clergymen, ministerial students, and men who file claims for reclassification as conscientious objectors.
quote: Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.
Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.
... STUDENT FINANCIAL AID Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
CITIZENSHIP The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
FEDERAL JOB TRAINING The Workforce Investment Act (formerly called the Job Training Partnership Act - JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
FEDERAL JOBS A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See State Legislation.
Selective Service wants young men to register. It does not want them to be prosecuted or denied benefits. If a draft is ever needed, it must be as fair as possible, and that fairness depends on having as many eligible men as possible registered. In the event of a draft, for every man who fails to register, another man would be required to take his place in service to his country.
You could probably register him online yourself if your Bummy doesn't want to deal with it.
I just hope not being registered doesn't cause him to be denied disability benefits later. I wonder what sndrake has to say on the subject.
AJ
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
The Army is losing a lot of soldiers at re-enlistment time because it is not honoring its promises to retirees. The Army wage-earners see how the retirees are being treated (lowering pensions, reducing health care benefits that were promised to them at their time of service) and are wondering if their own retirement benefits will be reduced at the same rate.
The big problem is not how much the military is paying its soldiers (or how little), the big issue is quality of life. The housing is falling apart, the healthcare benefits are being reduced, and deployments and workloads are increasing.
The military needs to work on keeping the (trained and seasoned) soldiers (marines, airmen, and sailors) it's got; not on dragging a bunch of draftees into service, training them up, and sending them to battle green and unwilling.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: The Army is losing a lot of soldiers at re-enlistment time
My cousin is an example of that. He told the Army where to shove it about 3 years ago. However, that was because they wouldn't give him the rating(job) he wanted when he went to reenlist. (I know rating is a navy term, but I don't know what the army calls it)
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
That's right, Stan, it happens all of the time. Heck, it happened with MY brother (he chaptered out after his rating [as you call it] was discontinued WHILE he was in Boot Camp). The Army calls ratings/jobs MOS's--Military (something) Specialties, I think. I know that it's MOS, I just don't know what MOS stands for. *grin*
Recruiters are taught to lie. It's a fact. My dad recruited for a short time while he was in the Navy, and he couldn't handle it. He was promising these young people the moon when he *knew* the military was going to renege.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Yes, a lot of them will lie. Others just stretch the truth....a lot. MOS, eh? ok. Then again, ya don't always get the brightest people joining the military either. I will have to start a new thread on this story later as it will greatly derail this thread.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: The idea of the draft itself is barbaric. The government has no right to force you to put your life on the line for the country. You might as well say the government has the right to kill people when it feels the need to.
The fact remains, if you live in a country, ANY country, you should be patriotic enough to fight for it. Barbaric or not, simplistic or complex, a draft is very often necesary to keep our countries free. The government has an obligation to keep the country that it serves, safe. The American Government is elected by the people. If you don't like the idea of a draft, elect someone else! If you've never voted, your voice on this forum should count as nill (of course that statement only counts for those over eighteen).
The majority of the qouted comment is ignorant banter. I think that it is necessary to point out that comments that portray the military as a group of stupid people, fighting for stupid things should be reviewed and in the minority of cases, edited. Please keep in mind that there are those of us on the board that are Active in the United States military and those comments are recieved as hostile. Personally, I think a draft is a very good thing for this country. If everything were done the way I want it done, everyone would serve a minimum of two years of service. But that's me.
-scottneb-
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The fact remains, if you live in a country, ANY country, you should be patriotic enough to fight for it."
Is it okay if I'm willing to die for it, but NOT to kill?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Sounds good Tom, you could be a designated "bullet catcher."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The fact remains, if you live in a country, ANY country, you should be patriotic enough to fight for it.
Why would this be true? Heck, I don't even think living in a country obligates you to waive it's flag around if you don't want to, much less kill yourself for it. Death is by no means a part of the social contract you enter into by happening to be born in a given country.
quote: If you don't like the idea of a draft, elect someone else!
I would almost certainly do that, but the problem is that the majority might overrule me and make my voice on the matter null and void. And this is a case, just like the majority deciding to eliminate free speech or the majority deciding to execute me without due process, where the majority has no right to make such a decision. Life is a fundamental right - the MOST fundamental, I'd expect. Thus trying to force people into the military is simply tyranny, whether done by an individual or by the majority. It should not be tolerated by anyone, and I would hope that most people would simply refuse to go along with it.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
The fact that this is being discussed by those within the government proves that this isn't tyrannical by any means. Don't take an extreme view and discuss it as fact.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
As the SO of someone in the Army, I know that during the deployment I felt much better knowing that the guys who were out there with him actually volunteered to be so. If Paul's being shot at I want him to at least be with someone who chose to do his job - to watch out for both himself and his brothers. War is difficult enough without questioning who has your back, or why they're there and whether those reasons will affect their actions negatively.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How do you know when they've reinstated the Draft?
When President Bush rejoins the nationa gaurd and President Clinton goes back to college in London.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Dan, you are the best. Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
edited to change graemlin
[ March 25, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Starla* ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Xaposert, its called the Social Contract. Look up John Locke.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The fact that this is being discussed by those within the government proves that this isn't tyrannical by any means.
Well, no. I'm sure everything the Nazi's did was discussed by those within the government - that doesn't make it not tyrannical.
If it's forcing me to go to war without me volunteering to die, it's tyranncial, because it's using power to take something you have no right to take - namely, life.
quote:Xaposert, its called the Social Contract. Look up John Locke.
Remember the inalienable right to life? That meant you couldn't give it up, even as part of the social contract.
The government cannot do whatever it wants and then claim the social contract obligates us to obey. The government has its end to hold up too - and that includes not violating fundamental human rights, first and foremost of which is the right to life.
(Also...John Locke's arguments don't really hold too well, in no small part because people don't really ever voluntarily consent to any social contract.)
[ March 25, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Wow, it's just like OSC said in that infamous column. No one is interested in defending the country.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, that's another question. All I think is that people who aren't interested in it, shouldn't have do die for it.
I presume in the face of true threats to the country, people would be much more interested in it.
[ March 25, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Military Occupational Specialty
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Thanx mack. I'm sure jexx thanx you too. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
There's nothing that says you must die. You might have to risk your life, but in such a time as a draft is called everyone's lives are endangered by the threat to be combated. The unalienable right to life doesn't mean that your life cannot be taken or put at risk. If such were true then we wouldn't be allowed to have any standing army and the death penalty couldn't exist.
People in fact due voluntarily agree to the Social Contract. The Social Contract states that in return for giving up certain "rights" the government provides services. One of those services is defense. By accepting the services the government provides it is implied that you agree to the Social Contract. That's the theory upon which our government is based.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
But I think the question is here--what are we defending ourselves against? The enemy is on the other side of the world. I know the whole WMD argument was used, but none have been found. It seemed more like a bullying operation than an actual defense of our homeland.
If we were to be invaded by another country, I think more people would take up arms against them. But right now, we are the aggressors, and not many citizens are for this cause.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven How do you know when they've reinstated the Draft?
When President Bush rejoins the nationa gaurd and President Clinton goes back to college in London.
I realize you're joking but if this is the same bill I read 2 months ago, they removed the college exemptions.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Oh Cripes. That's even better.
I suppose it doesn't matter--I graduate in May. But what about my friends? Maybe I'm too human to be logical.
It is a scary, scary world.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Saying that the idea of the draft is evil or tyrranical smacks me as overly idealistic. Imagine what the world would be like now if the US had not drafted anybody during WWII. Would the world be a better or worse place to live in?
It was said that if the citizens of a country don't man up and defend their country, that country doesn't deserve to exist. Just because people are stupid/selfish, they don't deserve to be occupied by a tyrranical force.
If a country decided to never, under any circumstances, institute the draft, then that country just signed its death warrant. It's just a matter of time.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
If it works the same way as before (Nam), then don't open the envelope and you can join the branch of your more preferred choosing. The navy hangs out far from land and drops bombs. Not that I suggest it. I like the navy, but am using it for personnal gains. Not only do I get the GI Bill (about $21,000), but I also get the navy college fund ($50,000). Oh yeah, I have plans. Oh and While in active duty I get 100% tuition assistance to take college courses. I am about half way if not more to a Mechanical Engineering degree. My roommate only needs to take 2 classes to get a BA in the same field.
[ March 25, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If such were true then we wouldn't be allowed to have any standing army and the death penalty couldn't exist.
The death penalty shouldn't exist, and we should not have any standing army in which people are not volunteers.
quote:People in fact due voluntarily agree to the Social Contract. The Social Contract states that in return for giving up certain "rights" the government provides services. One of those services is defense. By accepting the services the government provides it is implied that you agree to the Social Contract.
That is hardly voluntary though. For one thing, you do it at such an early age that you don't even know what you are doing. For another thing, how can you possibly reject it? Give up your life, your family, your land, your possessions, your community, and move across the world? You might as well put a gun to people's heads and call it "voluntary" when they consent to whatever you ask.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: That is hardly voluntary though. For one thing, you do it at such an early age that you don't even know what you are doing. For another thing, how can you possibly reject it? Give up your life, your family, your land, your possessions, your community, and move across the world? You might as well put a gun to people's heads and call it "voluntary" when they consent to whatever you ask.
You're missing the whole purpose of government. And the thing is government can't provide services without restricting rights as well. You have a right to work and make money for yourself. However, the Social Contract says the government can take some of that money in order to provide for services that require money. In the same way the government can take some of your time in order to provide for services that require that. People who don't agree to the Social Contract live in anarchy.
Whether or not you think the death penalty is justified is irrelevant. The point is the government has the right to curtail your right to life in order to provide for law and order. If not your life then your liberty or property. Justice must remove at least one of Jefferson's unalienable rights to function.
If the right to life was truly "unalienable" in your apparent sense of the word then we wouldn't be able to maintain a standing army of volunteers or non-volunteers because either way the government would be restricting an "unalienable" right.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
It's about damn time women were required to sign up for selective service.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: The housing is falling apart, the healthcare benefits are being reduced, and deployments and workloads are increasing.
I just reread the thread and came accross this.
A few years ago the top brass of the military did tours of their respective branches. The goal was to see the worst of the worst in military buildings/ housing. The result of this is a HUGE modernization program costing in the billions of dollars to upgrade the quality of life for our Airman, Seaman, and Soldiers. My wife and I moved into a beautiful two-story house built by the Army Corps of Engineers. We have a knew BX/PX on base and a really nice new HQ building.
As far as healthcare goes, it's never changed for Active Duty Personnel. The hospitals are still staffed by people with the same training, they still recieve the same pay, they still provide the same treatments (unless updated of course), and they still use the same materials. As far as I can see, healthcare has remained the same or gotten better.
If your talking about retiree healthcare, you're mistaken again. They still recieve the same healthcare they recieved on Active status, their ID cards might be a different color, but the service is the same. They might complain that they have to travel farther than before to get the free care, but that's only due to the military closing installations. Also, keep in mind that every retiree is eligable to be seen at a VA Hospital.
As far as the last two points, deployments and workload. I will agree and disagree. I agree that the deployments have increased, but that happens during every war. The workload issue is where I need to disagree. The military has been going through a huge modernization program for the last ten or so, years. This upgrade in technology has significantly eased the workload on the majority of the force.
-scottneb-
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'm sorry, I guess my point is that these are obsolete arguements.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
It seems to me that Americans as a whole value themselves far too highly as it is. I suppose thats to come from a society that isn't very belief oriented now a days. No why would you want to give up a wonderful life, the simple plod of happiness and entertainment upon yourselves. No.. don't worry at all. I'll go catch some rounds.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Black Fox, I'm sorry you feel that way. You know how I feel about you (warmly, of course, and worried, lots), but I think that Americans in general value you, the soldier. Well, I do anyway. *shrug*
Scott, I didn't see your reply because I was out and about. I don't always reply to threads. It's not an indictment against you or your ideas, it's just that I have things to do. Let me address your points briefly, as I have more things to do.
*I'm glad that you and the wife got new housing and a nice BX/PX. That is not the norm, in my experience. All of my evidence is anecdotal, but I will tell you that I have had bronchitis three times a year since I moved into this housing due to mold spores in the drywall. The mold is getting into the drywall because the bathroom is poorly grouted. The newly renovated bathroom (well, five years ago). The grout has fallen out from between the tiles, and the caulking from around the tub. The water gets into the drywall and creates an environment for the mold to thrive in. The mold thrives, and grows underneath the tile. The Housing dept. tells me (in response to my repeated calls) to caulk the tub and clean the bathroom more often. I call the health hazard officer (I forget the actual name of the job) and leave many many messages on his voice mail. Eventually he returns my calls and he and his assistant come out to my place to investigate for mold. Guess what? There is mold. And a squishy spot on the wall by the toilet where the water has gotten into the drywall. Apparently not enough mold to warrant a new tub enclosure, but hey! I get the hole in the wall repaired--and once again, they caulk the tub.
I won't even get into the sewage backing up into the tub. Twice.
This is an ongoing problem in this area, it's not just me, and it's not just this section of post. It's not even just enlisted housing, there are about a hundred captains on this post (West Point instructors), and they have falling down crappy, lead-painted interiors, mold in the wall housing as well.
One housing unit down the street from mine had the mold and water-saturated walls and floors situation so bad that the toilet fell through to the second floor. That unit was condemned.
So, while I'm all happy for you and whatnot, I'm still a little peeved about my situation, you can understand.
*Healthcare has changed for the *dependents* of Active Duty personnel, because on-post dental clinics are no longer available for dependent use. There used to be a program where one could get on a waiting list (you had to be physically present, so it wasn't ideal) and get treatment at the dental clinic. I'm also under the impression that Tri-Care used to have a dental plan as part of its coverage (under its old name which escapes me at the moment), but I'm probably wrong.
*I tell you the truth, I don't know too much about the health plans of retirees, I just remember my friend Myrna having a very difficult time having her cataracts treated while we were stationed in Ft. Huachuca. Also, my friend Mr. Roy (a retired Air Force Colonel who works as a DOD civilian now) is having a hard time getting his physical therapy approved. Again, anecdotal, but I only know what I see and hear. The statistics don't say much to me, because statistics lie.
*The modernization of the Army: don't make me laugh. My husband buys tools for use at his motorpool all of the time because he can't get the funding approved for an air compressor (for example).
And my husband's most frequent deployments came in AZ and AK, prior to 9/11/01.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Whether or not you think the death penalty is justified is irrelevant. The point is the government has the right to curtail your right to life in order to provide for law and order.
No, the government doesn't. The death penalty is relevant because you tried to use as an example of when the government can curtail that right, when all it really is is an example of when the government wrongly curtails that right.
Let me simply state now that I do not voluntarily agree to any social contract in which I am forced to sacrifice my life against my will in any way. The social contract I have agreed to holds the right to life as sacred, and I expect the government to hold up their end of that contract. If they don't, the contract is pretty much null and void.
quote:If the right to life was truly "unalienable" in your apparent sense of the word then we wouldn't be able to maintain a standing army of volunteers or non-volunteers because either way the government would be restricting an "unalienable" right.
Maybe by Locke's sense of the word, but I think there's a difference between a person willingly sacrificing his life for a cause, and a person being forced to do so. I think the former is okay, and the latter is simply wrong.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
quote: Saying that the idea of the draft is evil or tyrranical smacks me as overly idealistic. Imagine what the world would be like now if the US had not drafted anybody during WWII. Would the world be a better or worse place to live in?
I'm probably just reiterating John's point, but WWII was different in a way. It was indeed popular with the public.
The world is definately a better place because we fought in that war.
However, Vietnam, was not. The older generation sent the younger generation to fight a fear of communism in some country they couldn't relate to. A fear, I think, was unfounded. The war dragged on, and many men died for no reason.
I would be willing to fight in a war that had a good point. This current war, does not. It's all bull, for all I care.
I'm not saying I don't respect then men and women over there now--they believe in this war. I don't. I think it's a sham. I'm not willing to be forced into service and die for something I don't believe in.
[ March 27, 2004, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Starla* ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The social contract I have agreed to holds the right to life as sacred, and I expect the government to hold up their end of that contract. If they don't, the contract is pretty much null and void.
Of course, those crimes which subject people to the death penalty can be taken as voluntary abrogations of that social contract. In the U.S., there's no capital punishment for non-homicide crimes. So the person subjected to it has already opted out of the "Life is sacred" term of the contract.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Xaposert, why don't you try responding to my entire argument where I explain how the other "unalienable" rights are also curtailed?
Starla, it bothers me that you seem to think a war being "popular" determines justification. I say that for two reasons. The first is that I'm pretty sure you were against the Iraq war and that was "popular" when it was initiated and the draft happens when the war starts not when its over and we have the benefit of hindsight, and the same could be said for Vietnam. The second problem I have is that a war can be unpopular and justified. In World War I and World War II the US would have been easily justified to have jumped into fray years earlier. Why do we seemingly always have to wait for a provoking incident like the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Jexx the army has always been bad about things like that. Its taken forever for my dad to get the benefits he deserves. Plus hey my tooths been jacked up for over a year now due to shrapnel and I still don't even have an appointment because they've jacked up my paper work so many times. I've gotten double shots on multiple occasions because my shot records keep on getting lost by the medics etc. And I've been in more than one bad piece of army housing. Its not all that great and remember I live in the barracks!!! Not exactly what you would call an excellent place to say the least. You know most of the nifty gear and things I had in Iraq I bought with my own cash. Heck I even bought myself brand 100 round pouches for my M249 Saw at the time, a different belt from army issue, different medical supplies than they give us, etc. The army ends up supplying you most of the things you need through your salary, namely you buying it yourself. I hate the idea to be honest, but its how things work. I for one do not work in the army for the pay, or even the benefits to be honest. The fact is the army's dollars are more likely to be spent on some new piece of equipment, which then gets scrapped by congress 6 years later because its too expensive, then it is to go to my welfare. Then of course I don't care for my own welfare as much as I do those soldiers who are married or have children. But hey as they always tell us if you die your family will be well off with the 200K life insurance you get, oh yeah did I mention that a lot of that simply goes to the government in the form of taxes. Gotta love the system. But then I'll be honest, I don't want to be an American anymore.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Why do we seemingly always have to wait for a provoking incident like the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?
Because they, er, showed clear and present danger to the United States? I don't know...seems like a good reason to defend the country when it is, in fact, being attacked or directly threatened.
That is "seemingly" the best reason to fight a war...when attacked. When else should we fight a war? Or more to the point, when should the US start a war?
fil
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I can't imagine that a draft that included women would ever pass. First, in regard to the ERA (Equal Rights Ammendment):
quote:Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill. The main objections to the ERA were based on fears that women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children.
A draft which included women would most definitely have to exclude mothers, and that would raise a storm of protest from women who weren't mothers, claiming that they were being prejudiced against and made to risk their lives due to a personal choice not to have children. Furthermore, there would have to be a clause exempting women whose religious beliefs prevent them from serving in the army. Even disregarding specific details, I am sure that America in general is still traditional enough that a draft which included women would not pass.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Because they, er, showed clear and present danger to the United States? I don't know...seems like a good reason to defend the country when it is, in fact, being attacked or directly threatened.
That is "seemingly" the best reason to fight a war...when attacked. When else should we fight a war? Or more to the point, when should the US start a war?
Or maybe instead of waiting until thousands of lives are lost we should consider action. In WWI you had agression by Germany and u-boats sinking American passenger and freight ships without warning. In WWII you had Germany invading country after country, Attacking American passenger and freight ships without warning, committing genocide... Why wait in either situation?
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
First, one could argue that if America had joined the war earlier, Hitler would have had less of a hold, would have been less powerful, and the war would have been won more quickly. However, do you believe that defense is the only justifiable reason for America to go to war? Terrible atrocities were being committed against the Jews and others, and there is definite proof the the government knew about much of it; if America had gone to war earlier, assuming they had won earlier as well, a huge number of atrocities would have been prevented and a huge number of lives would have been saved. Not American, no, so if your belief is that nations should not interfere with other nations no matter what, then according to you, America did the right thing. However, most people do consider an attempt at genocide by another nation a good reason to try to stop them, by war if necessary.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
yes, I do know the way out, but I have another 3 years in the military and I honor my commitments. I will have no problems or troubles changing once my service is done. I for one follow my word.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: Wow, it's just like OSC said in that infamous column. No one is interested in defending the country
Though I may be in it for differing reasons, I will continue the fight if need be.
Black Fox, there is a reason I didn't join the Army. However, Navy medical is not any better. And the dentists suck. New technology!?!? Where? I am working with 20 or more year old equipment. The navy believes that if it works, why upgrade? Yes, some stuff has changed to newer. Just not anything I work on. The Navy's ships are built by the lowest bidder. Hmmmmm, I hope you guys have better luck, but I don't think it is so much.
quote: I can't imagine that a draft that included women would ever pass. First, in regard to the ERA (Equal Rights Ammendment):
If women were not included, then how could it be equal? What about fathers? Should they be excluded from the draft? They aren't. Get over yourself before talking about equal opportunity. What is given/granted/pursued by/for/from one has to be the same for the other. Before you go off on a tirade on me, I can understand your arguement about mothers, but your argument overall is flawed. But believe what you will.
[ March 28, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
yes, its because they don't really have all that much money as far as things of that nature go. and as I said it all goes into some project that ends up being to expensive to build completely so they drop it. All that money wasted ::Shrugs shoulders:: thats the government. Military RnD projects aren't really run by the military so much as the government. They can cut the projects whenever they want to.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xaposert, why don't you try responding to my entire argument where I explain how the other "unalienable" rights are also curtailed?
Well, I think these (liberty and property) are lesser rights, and that we give them up in exchange for certain benefits.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
jexx, I know what you're going through. Our old house was pretty bad. It had asbestos in the walls and in the glue used to put the wood flooring down. We actually had to sign a waiver to get into the house, saying that we wouldn't sue if we got sick. But, needless to say, the situation is getting better for the majority of the military. If they aren't already building new housing on your post, they probably are working the issue now.
Your comment about Tri-Care not covering dental is true. They don't. But, that is because there is another company that covers dependents called United Concordia. Although it's not free, its extremely good insurance and will cover a wider variety of dental issues (including braces, which Tri-Care was always reluctant to do) at a very low price.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm probably just reiterating John's point, but WWII was different in a way. It was indeed popular with the public.
Yes, after Pearl Harbor, much of the population supported the war. But we still had a draft. We still forced young men to go and die for their country. And it's a good thing that they did. The world would be a much worse place right now if they had not.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I don't have a problem with the draft, as long as it is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner and as long as it's truly necessary.
Andrew and I discussed what we would do if we had a son who was drafted. We both agreed that we would want him to answer the call. Of course, we would be sick with worry, but that's the price we pay for our lifestyle and freedom.
We also dicussed what we would do if our son wanted to evade the draft and move to Canada (when you live with an Ethics professor, you have these kinds of conversations ) Andrew said that he would be disappointed and that he would want our son to live in Canada for the rest of his life. We wouldn't disown him or anything like that - he would still be our son - but to our way of thinking, he shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of an American way of life if he's not willing to serve when his country needs him.
Andrew himself wanted to join the Air Force when he was growing up. He finally had to accept that they wouldn't take someone who is 6'5'' and colorblind. After 9/11, he would have enlisted if it hadn't been for his disabilities (and the fact that he was a newlywed).
As to women being drafted, I'm all for it and I'd go. I'm a crack shot and I have a cool head in emergencies.
BTW, there is an alternative to the draft - being a conscientious objector.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When I am dealing with hypotheticals, I agree with you. I hope that I would answer the draft if I were drafted.
But the idea of me going to war scares me to death. My three biggest irrational fears are going to war, going to prison, and needles. I comfort myself my saying that if there were a war, they would hopefully get more use out of me as an engineer than a soldier.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote: It's about damn time women were required to sign up for selective service.
It is so true. This really parallels the fact that no one complains that there are not enough female garbage collectors.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: In WWII you had Germany invading country after country, Attacking American passenger and freight ships without warning, committing genocide... Why wait in either situation?
Right-o. I agree. We should defend allies if they are invaded and I could follow an argument to respond to genocide earlier than we did during WW2 (and since then, actually). But you are still only advocating my point in that it is still responding to an attack, not pre-empting it. I agree, WW2 started too late in terms of Jews (and people with disabilities, and homosexuals, and intellectuals, and...) lost and countries invaded but the fact remains, we would have responded to a threat, not pre-empted it. How do you pre-empt this? When would you have known that Hitler was GOING TO BE a threat? At what point would you have invaded?
And with current policies, how would you know to invade? Who would you not invade and who would you invade? What would a criteria be? Numbers of murders by the regime? Go from the top down? Would it be how many weapons they have that could hurt us? As a addition to the last criteria, would it also be said country's ability to attack us back? I mean, I don't see Bush invading China to bring democracy there in any near future. What would be the criteria? Lacking that, why is it so bad to work towards peace and finding better ways to NOT get into wars knowing that at any one time, gobs of regimes, petty up to significant, are going to be doing nasty things to themselves and others. We don't have nearly enough resources to work from your "get rid of them all" tactics. It is an unsustainable method and truly DOES leave our country more at risk as we spread our troops like too little butter over to much bread (thank you, Bilbo).
Really, beyond drafting every adult from 20-44 into armed service (and even with that) how is the campaign to remove ALL possible armed threats to this country to work out?
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)