Will we all be drafted in the USA?
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 01:10
VIEWED: 9048
PAGE 3 of 6
Interesting take HKCavalier --
I don't see how using our volunteers for cannon fodder would be any more acceptable to you.
See, to me the point of having mandatory service would be that EVERYBODY must serve, and that hopefully, the public pressure would demand the strictest of standards before turning our boys and girls, as you put it, into cannon fodder.
The problem with Americans these days is that we dont' feel the need to understand anything...we don't feel the need to pay attention, we don't feel the need to be informed about the Iraq conflict, or to concern ourselves with what the rest of the world thinks, because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for this war. A neccesary war should only be one we as a nation are willing to sacrifice for. I think this might keep the system more honest...
but this is me thinking out loud. I do think there are other less objectionable ways to deal with my concerns. There should be laws against companies making a profit during a time of war, as just one example.
edited to add --
I don't think it's an infringement upon our democracy to agree democratically to certain mandatory sacrifices for our freedom. In this case, I actually see it making our nation's people more involved in our democracy, which could only make it a truer one. Don't hold me to this though. Might change my mind tomorrow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Imma hafta call BS on this whole concept here.
Firstoff, the first place I heard this concept expressed was the book Starship Troopers, written by a downright nutter who's completely on-board with the Leo Strauss bandwagon, which, given recent events while such people had dominance over our government, oughta give you some pause when considering such a thing.
We are NOT servants of the state, people, we're it's masters - and to forget that even for a moment is a disservice and a negligence of your civic duty.
Secondly, I did not ASK to be born here, and that happy (or unfortunate, if you like) accident should not automatically obligate me to a damned thing - I am not this governments chattel, and they've already gotten as much service as I deemed it worthy to give them, in exchange for certain obligations on their part which they utterly failed to fulfill, thus breaching my contract - be damned if I'd give them a second bite, or encourage anyone else to give em a first.
Our system as it stands is rife with abuse, and every day that passes sees it engineered further to protect and reward that abuse, and at this time a big part of our check and balance as citizens is that we can tell them to piss up a tree - and you wanna meekly hand over even that?
Disgusting.
The very minute you make something "Mandatory" you leave it open to massive exploitation, just witness school uniforms worth $26.00 shooting up to $112.15 after they've been made "Mandatory" in a school district.
This would be little different, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the first people sent would be those who aren't in lockstep with the current administration and thier policies, followed quickly by those social undesireables that the ivory tower crowd wants eliminated - for them it's win-win, they get their war for profit, enrich the war machine profiteers, keep the reins of power solid, and flush the society of those they do not want - a social form of eugenics, you might say.
The whole concept needs to be tossed on the scrapheap, entire.
Oh, and as for the GOP ever, ever actually following through on the "your life, your business" rhetoric ?
Smell what you're shovelling, history proves that a lie all the way back up through the Whigs - they've NEVER done so, and never will.
And for the few that mentioned it...
If you are having to ask yourself if it's time for an armed revolt ?
Then it's already too late for one.
Best bet is to get them to destroy themselves, which doesn't take nearly as much effort as one would think, just witness the circular firing squad the GOP has fast become as things come apart on them.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to admit to being disappointed. There are other things the democrats could be focusing on.
This gets back to the thread - what do you want the democrats to do? I've been mulling it over. The polls said corruption and ethics (42%), terrorism (40%), the economy (39%), Iraq (37%), and values (36%). (I presume 'values' is code for same-sex marriage, but I could be wrong.) http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/
Politically, it is incumbent on the democrats to police their own ranks to avoid the same scandals, AND to strengthen Congressional ethics rules. It's also important to hold hearings and investigations on what the republicans did wrong. Not for revenge, but because the recent workings of the government need to be made transparent to the people, and to be indelibly written into history.
For the sake of the country, laws need to be passed to make sure a 'unitary executive' will never approach the level of dictatorship as we have recently seen - under any pretext. And government needs to be restructured to insure that politics will not drive intelligence, science, and medicine. The US needs a stable, non-partisan bureaucracy. And military contractors need to be put under the same legal code as uniformed soldiers. Private entities doing government business and being paid by the government shouldn't be exempt from the rules of war.
The 2000, 2004 and 2006 votes need to be investigated. Not just the voting machines and counting machines, but registration and access. Running the voting process - from registration to counting - needs to be made non-partisan, transparent and secure.
At the same time the country has been driven to near ruin in many ways, and one of them is the military. Rumpsfailed intended to drive the military to extinction. There may be no popular solution at this point to bringing the US back to military readiness. And the fact is the US cannot address either NK or Iran, or indeed any other potential military threat. A draft may be the only solution left.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Since when was the draft anything but a horrible, horrible injustice? I don't understand how Liberals/Democrats/whatever can be so vehemently supportive of a woman's right to choose whether she brings a baby to term or not, but completely accepting of forced labor. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, and if you support a draft, go sign up!
Just because something is worthwhile, like public service, doesn't mean the government should be allowed to FORCE people to do it.
And, correct me if I wrong, but aren't draftees simply cannon fodder?
I gotta say I'm pretty disgusted that right out of the box this is what our democratic leadership thinks the country needs. Rather than address the raft of injustice the Bush admin. has committed they start brewing up their own version.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Amen, well stated HK....you get no argument here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Couple of points here:
Rangel has been talking about this idea for several years now -- so claiming that he's only started talking about this after the election is misinformed. Not surprising, the mainstream media news outlets haven't even come close to doing their jobs for the last eight years or so.
He has also said that he would not support his own idea if it were later amended to allow deferments. He has also admitted that it has virtually no chance of ever being enacted. It is more of a rhetorical device within which he comments upon the fact that the majority of Republican leadership at this time are all for going to war, when they did not serve in the military themselves.
Sadly, this is information that you just can't get on televised "news" networks or programs, or even in the print media. If only we had access to some sort of series of tubes that information is passed along (another political thing, that didn't really make much of an impact on the mainstream media, so I won't be surprised if no one gets it. Unless you watch Colbert...)
http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
See, to me the point of having mandatory service would be that EVERYBODY must serve, and that hopefully, the public pressure would demand the strictest of standards before turning our boys and girls, as you put it, into cannon fodder.
Boy, that sure sounds nice...if everybody had to go, we'd really think hard before going. Its reason like that made Vietnam so popular.
The most distressing part of this whole argument is that a drafted force would suffer a substantial loss in quality similar to what we had in the pre-volunteer days.
Democrats want to raise your taxes and send your kids to Vietnam...Iraq...Vietnam...Irag...thats a recipe for victory in 2008.
My theory on the Wrangle's draft angle is the same as when I first heard it a few years back. The Democrats want Iraq to be Vietnam. They therefore must bring back the draft so they can campaign against it.
I also note for the record that the proportion of the minority black soldier versus non-black soldier casualties remains unfavorably balanced against the white soldiers when compared to their proportion in society as a whole or the military in particular. Perhaps when Wrangle is complaining about the unfair burden, he means not enough blacks are dying to make it fair...especially when compared to hispanics who are above average (although they are taking a large portion of the black share, not the white share).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure a draft would do what Rangel says it would, which is to force lawmakers into considering what war would do to their kids and grandkids. I think he has a quaint view of the USA. W/o question, the children of the wealthy would either get some kind of medical deferrment or some cushy stateside assignment, like Bush.
The question to think about is whether a draft shortens or lengthens the course of a war. There was a draft during the Vietnam War, and also considerable opposition. Do you think the war would have been shorter or longer w/o a draft? I think prolly shorter, since the "feedback" on entering a fraudulent war is (as DT pointed out) lowered voluntary enlistment.
As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea. Send an "army" of kids down to New Orleans to clean up and help rebuild, or reforest, or renovate inner city housing. You could get a lot done and "the kids" would learn something they otherwise wouldn't. But there might be repercussions on the wage structure if you have a whole swath of people working for whatever wages the Federal government would pay, at jobs that would prolly represent more skill than flipping burgers. Needs thought as to whether this would be a positive educational step.
It might be worth considering the idea if the Dems made some SERIOUS moves towards increasing other rights because if we create a bunch of government serfs, it had better be a government that we can throttle.
---------------------------------
Right now I'm not trusting anyone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
W/o question, the children of the wealthy would either get some kind of medical deferrment or some cushy stateside assignment, like Bush.
You mean like Clinton. Far as I can recall, Bush was in the military and flew jets, which is no small-time job and one in line with his family's record of service. Sure, he could have gone infantry, but somebody had to fly those National Guard planes, why not Bush.
Clinton on the other hand spend his Vietnam tour smoking weed in some Anglish pub at Oxford with his KGB 'handlers'.
Quote:
As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea.
Yeah, until someone tasked them to do something they didn't want to do, like fight in Iraq. Then they'd be burning their cards and fleeing to Canada.
Or is this a backdoor health care plan. If everybody serves, everybody gets lifetime healthcare like soldiers get now. Maybe thats their real plan afterall.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It occurs to me that maybe Rangel's proposal is a bargaining chip, to be tied to any propsoal for invading Iran. It may not be a serious stand-alone proposition.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea. Send an "army" of kids down to New Orleans to clean up and help rebuild, or reforest, or renovate inner city housing. You could get a lot done and "the kids" would learn something they otherwise wouldn't.
Sounds a lot like a great New Deal program- the Civilian Conservation Corps, where unemployed workers joined roaming labor camps that went about the country doing public works projects in exchange for room & board and a nominal wage. Not a bad idea...
Quote:
But there might be repercussions on the wage structure if you have a whole swath of people working for whatever wages the Federal government would pay, at jobs that would prolly represent more skill than flipping burgers. Needs thought as to whether this would be a positive educational step.
Sounds like a good reason not to suspend the Davis-
Bacon Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon#Hurricane_Katrina
Quote:
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, House Representatives Jeff Flake, Tom Feeney, Marilyn Musgrave, and other members of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) urged President Bush to temporarily suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in order to expedite the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast. President George W. Bush then issued proclamation 7924 to indefinitely suspend the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 (the Davis–Bacon Act) in designated areas in the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the areas most heavily hit by the hurricane...On October 26, 2005, after pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, Bush rescinded his emergency order and restored the prevailing wage requirement.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME