Would you support a US draft?

Under what circulmstances would you support a US military draft?

  • I support a draft even if the US does not expand their military occupation
  • I support a draft if the US invades Iran.
  • I think a draft is not needed because the situation in Iraq is currently under control.
  • I would not support a draft under any circumstances.

0 voters

There are a number of readers on this forum who support the American occupation of Iraq, the military action in Afghanistan, and the recent talk of invading Iran. Given the current situation in Iraq, it would appear that the US will need to institute compulsory military service if they expand their military occupation. Would you support the development of a military draft system to recruit more soldiers for an occupation of more Middle East or Persian Gulf states?

I’ve served in both a draftee army and a volunteer army. I prefer the latter. The military certainly doesn’t want draftees.

I advocate that the 4 kool-aid swilling Moonies on Forumosa who advocate war go and enlist, or if they start a draft, that they get drafted first. As Comrade Stalin noted, the military would much prefer these gung-ho types anyway. I’d be very interested to hear their political attitudes after a tour of duty or two, if they’re still alive. Please go there and start a blog. Oh, maybe they’re censored from blogging, oh well.

There are not actually “a number of readers” supporting US aggression, its more like 4, as seen at forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=38339

Dulce bellum inexpertis.
War is lovely for those who know nothing of it.

Agreed…though I have never spent time in the armed forces. :blush:

Yes, yes, all the International Politics posters can come in and holler but why are we involved in other people’s business? Granted, there are times when we have to insure peace…but we need people who understand the when’s, why’s, and how’s. I don’t think that Bush understands this…

We shouldn’t have gone after Iraq (though getting that sucker, Hussein, was a worthy cause)…we should have looked East. :sunglasses:

I would support a draft if some country invaded the US.

I advocate that the 4 kool-aid swilling Moonies on Forumosa who advocate war go and enlist, or if they start a draft, that they get drafted first. As Comrade Stalin noted, the military would much prefer these gung-ho types anyway. I’d be very interested to hear their political attitudes after a tour of duty or two, if they’re still alive. Please go there and start a blog. Oh, maybe they’re censored from blogging, oh well.
[/quote]

You may not agree with Comrade Stalin’s POV but you should respect his POV. He has earned that for sure… :s

When China finally takes this rock, it will be “gung-ho” types who will die trying to evacuate you from the tender mercies of the PLA …not Forumosa’s pseudo-intellectual girlie-men. They’ll be too busy arguing over the proper romanization of the evac directions.

[quote=“Toe Tag”]Dulce bellum inexpertis.
War is lovely for those who know nothing of it.[/quote]

Tell me about it. Please. Every detail.

Don’t need it. You should see what some people have buried someplace secret…someplace safe.(of course all for historical importance) Let them come…

Probably unnecessary. That little thing in the Constitution called the Second Amendment would make previously known horrors of urban warfare seem like a door to door Amway campaign.

Probably unnecessary. That little thing in the Constitution called the Second Amendment would make previously known horrors of urban warfare seem like a door to door Amway campaign.[/quote]

Oh yes that little thing that allows you to go round shooting people willy nilly because guns can be bought with your morning paper. :loco:

Mind you, the second amendment may become much more necessary if Bush continues his military adventurism into Persia for then it will most definitely a case of bearing arms in the absence of a standing army as all the little boys with big toys will be dead.

BroonAhmadinejad

The only people who “want” a draft are the Democrats, who kept trying to use it as an issue to beat up Bush in the 2004 election. Chuckie Rangel even sponsored a bill to reinstate it, whereupon he tried to claim it was all Bush’s idea. :loco:

Probably unnecessary. That little thing in the Constitution called the Second Amendment would make previously known horrors of urban warfare seem like a door to door Amway campaign.[/quote]

Oh yes that little thing that allows you to go round shooting people willy nilly because guns can be bought with your morning paper. :loco: [/quote]
Most gunshops open a little before lunchtime and stay open until late evening. It would be more appropriate to buy guns with dinner.

I seem to recall that during WWII our civilian gun enthusiasts, led by the NRA, took up a collection of donated firearms for Britain, since practically the only guns you folks had over there were fowling pieces owned by the aristocracy.

The advertisement’s text was:

[quote]SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME
British civilians, faced with threat of invasion,
desperately need arms for the defense of their homes.
YOU CAN AID.[/quote]

A quick search turns up this article:
findarticles.com/p/articles/ … i_n8763441

The text is a ltitle different from what I’ve read elsewhere, but he cites a date and page number, so I’d trust this a bit more. If anyone has a copy of the November 1940 “American Rifleman”, you could scan a copy and post it. . . .

ETA: Ah, oops. A little more searching, and voila:

Image courtesy of Hodgdon Powder Co., an American gunpowder manufacturer. (I use their IMR4064 with Sierra 168grMK bullets and Federal match cases for my 0.35"-at-100yds .308 reloads. But I digress, and a certain rodent might become annoyed if I continue.)
hodgdon.com/liberty/british_ad.htm

Of course, after WWII, instead of keeping or at least returning the donated weapons, your government rounded them up and dumped them into the ocean. :unamused:

You’re welcome. Not.

Impossible. American support for the occupation in Iraq is on the wane just as civil war in that country looms. The Bushies will have their hands full justifying and dealing with that mess let alone thinking about any other invasions.

It’s like Colin Powel warned Bush about Iraq “You bust it, you bought it”. Well he busted it alright and fixing the thing is going to take years. Hopefully the fixed version will be an improvement. It would be nice if this fiasco made some kind of sense.

I’m in favor of the draft though in this case if it gets more rich kids and fewer poor killed in bush’s war.

The only people who suggest a draft are those who have made an evaluation and came to the conclusion that (1) not accounting for securing the homeland and meeting US objectives elsewhere, Iraq itself can never be stabilized without a massive increase in the number of US troops; and (2) voluntary enlistment numbers are falling far short of recruitment goals for a couple of years now and are not enough to meet the demand called for in (1). Of course, without a draft, the war engine can still run for a long time on mercenaries – the so called “security contractors” – if you drain the US Treasury or better yet, loot booty from the conquered land. Hey, the Romans tried it.

Nobody wants or needs a draft because no one in a position to decide wants or needs more U.S. troops in the Middle East. The Iraqi people don’t want more troops in their country. The vast majority believe U.S. troops incite the insurgency and discredit anyone they’re closely associated with.

The Bush administration intends to permanently keep U.S. troops in four remote bases in Iraq in order to exert control over the governments of the region. That’s all it really cares about. It’s largely irrelevant to them what state the Iraqi people are in as long as U.S. troops aren’t being killed. The only conditions they need to avoid then are worst-case scenarios of civil war or an out-of-control insurgency. The Bush plan is to make duty in Iraq little more than a year or two in remote, well-defended bases with little contact with the local population and use hefty enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses to sweeten the deal, while shifting the dying to impoverished locals who can’t get any other kind of work.

So far that plan is working so there’s no current role in the Project for a New American Century for more U.S. troops.

There’s no future need for more U.S. troops in the Plan either because Iran’s nuclear power infrastructure will be turned into smoking ruins sooner or later by a combined U.S./Israeli air and special forces assault, neither of which require large numbers of conventional troops.

The only possible reason for needing more troops in Iraq would be to somehow extricate all U.S. troops from there in the near future but as Forumosa’s resident holy warriors can confirm they and the Bush administration have no intention whatsoever of doing that.

[quote=“bob”]
I’m in favor of the draft though in this case if it gets more rich kids and fewer poor killed in Bush’s war.[/quote]

Gee…maybe I am in favor of the draft…it might give some here job skills which would enable them to do more than teach kindy. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“bob”]
I’m in favor of the draft though in this case if it gets more rich kids and fewer poor killed in Bush’s war.[/quote]

Gee…maybe I am in favor of the draft…it might give some here job skills which would enable them to do more than teach kindy. :smiling_imp: :laughing:[/quote]
Tell me, would you really WANT them in the military? The Peter Principle applies at all levels – some people’s level of competence is being a dancing monkey.

I also was a draftee (that means I was drafted) and later a volunteer in the US Army.
The military draft did 2 things, IMO.

  1. Brought a large number of people who would never have considered military service into the miliatry - with both good & bad results.
  2. Created a point for violent civil division among the left-wing elements of American society.
    Some of my fellow draftees were outstanding soldiers, some were shit-bags from the git go. Thus the 'oft used expression (which pre-dated the computer revolution) - “Garbage in - Garbage out.”

Also the “Only poor/black people get drafted” has been shown to be untrue. Try reading “STOLEN VALOR” for a look at the facts about military demographics - racially/socially/economically.

I personally would support a 2 year civil/military draft for all USA citizens. Either at 18 or 21 years of age. Do your time in the military or performing work in the civilian corps. And heck, not all draftees go to war.
Oh, and Toe Tag - I see your attempts at using Latin phrases to support your posts - this one kind of bites your own butt…don’t it?..LOL :loco:

Oh…and it really doesn’t matter what the non-USA residents think about this issue.
MPS - excellent info. My Pop told me stories of this help effort in WWII and he even had framed some of these pages from the American Rifleman as artwork on the walls of our family room.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
MPS - excellent info. My Pop told me stories of this help effort in WWII and he even had framed some of these pages from the American Rifleman as artwork on the walls of our family room.[/quote]

Back in the early 1980s, the Brits turned around and started selling many of the surviving weapons back to American importers. They had new British armory proofmarks. Some of the pre-war .45s were still in beautiful condition. And pricey!

A military is stronger and better when the people in it want to be in it. Furthermore, the very concept of the draft is against the principle of the freedom of self-determination.

Read up on the history of the Roman Army, its makeup and it’s role in the fall of the Republic and the founding of the Empire.