Military Draft

Originally posted by RZA
So, I met this guy at the gym today who kept going on and on about how the draft is real and it's definitely coming and soon. I know there's been plenty of talk about this before but it does seem like the US military now more than ever is becoming increasingly thin.

So my obvious question is do you think a mandatory military draft is imminent? Why or why not?

Also, if there was a draft and you were against going, what would you do?

Before you answer the second question please keep in mind the following facts...

The age has been recently increased from 36 to 42. So now anyone from 18 to 42 can be called, tho it is most likely to come from the pool of 18 to 26 as in Vietnam.

Here were the results of the lottery in 1969. Interesting statistic at the bottom.

http://www.landscaper.net/draft.htm

or you can also read it at the official site

http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm

And for those who were thinking about fleeing to Canada this time around, a certain little agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. called the 'Smart Border Declaration' could be used to keep you from crossing the border.

Here's more info. on the agreement...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020909.html

Noticed I said it could be used, not saying that's what it's specifically for.

This is very old news, Four years ago this stuff came out. A draft is not going to happen, it would be a political suicide move.

Besides, non-combat military service should be mandatory anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A draft is an appropriate tool in dire enough circumstances, but Iraq does not qualify for that any more than Vietnam should have done. It has to be World War desperate to qualify, really.

Even then it seems to be unfair and unfree. It just seems like a decision a government should not be allowed to make.

There are about 100,000 soldiers on individual ready reserve, they would be recalled 1st. The other branches as well... Some have been reactivated to duty, not sure of the exact numbers. They pulled that crap when I was seperating from the army, "You might as well reenlist, they're gonna call you back and put you in a reserve unit."
It will be a nasty situation if they reinstate the draft. I don't give your source a whole lot of credibility, but who knows. The goverment is capable of anything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even then it seems to be unfair and unfree. It just seems like a decision a government should not be allowed to make.

Well, I am afraid we'll have to disagree there. I think it is an emergency power all Governments are entitled to enact in a situation of sufficient gravity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good news Pittman....Soleran,...Saddam and I decided to settle our disputes by letting you play a little game of Russian Roulette....why you? Well, why not, you are citizens, do that for you country...don't be selfish...."I want to live, I want to live"...BULLSHIT...you are Americans and as such you have to risk your lives (the only ones you have) to attack other countries so we can get oil...we like oil.

Countries should not be able to decide for you if you are going to risk your live for some more or less important issue. That is a decision everyone is allowed to make for themselves and the majority can **** itself up the butt....if 50% want to fight a war, they are the ones that are going to fight it. It is a personal decision that should have nothing, nothing to do with being a citizen...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I am afraid we'll have to disagree there. I think it is an emergency power all Governments are entitled to enact in a situation of sufficient gravity.

How far can those go? And how unfair are they allowed to be?

As unfair as the situation warrants, frankly. The Governments first duty is to protect the society it represents and if that really is on the line, the needs of society will overrule the desires of individual people.

The final justifcation is that without a draft the Allies would have lost both World Wars.

It's not pleasant but in emergency situations it is the Government's right- or indeed duty- to enact such measures.

But since the end of World War II, no situation has come close to that.

Being a strict pacifist and currently a college student, I'd be passed over for the draft

Originally posted by ThePittman
I don’t know of any major power that doesn’t require its citizens to fight in time of war. If a country were attacking our resources that would cripple our nation, then yes I would fight for oil or what ever to protect this country. If you wouldn’t defend you country why should you reap the benefits of living there?

Because I pay taxes?

Look the governments purpose is to "protect" me...not to out me in danger to make money. If the government does not protect me but instead forces me to risk my life it is time for this government to go. People that want to fight ont heir own account can fight....if my country was attacked I would make the decision if I wanted to protect it and risk my life in battle or if I would accept the intruders as new leaders....either way, it is my decision, and not the decision of the government, The government in itself hass no rights, no authority and no goals...it's the people that do, ultimately it comes down to each individual.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As unfair as the situation warrants, frankly. The Governments first duty is to protect the society it represents and if that really is on the line, the needs of society will overrule the desires of individual people.

The final justifcation is that without a draft the Allies would have lost both World Wars.

It's not pleasant but in emergency situations it is the Government's right- or indeed duty- to enact such measures.

But since the end of World War II, no situation has come close to that.

What if the people do not want to win the war. That is the peoples decisio. And why just males from 18 to 30...sounds really, really unfair.

Sod the people's decision. It isn't mob rule; they can elect Governments and that is it. The scenario is incredibly unlikely, though.

A Government would be failing in its primary duty in such a situation if it failed to enact such a measure that would save its society.

In such emergencies individual rights are definiely going to become second place.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
There are about 100,000 soldiers on individual ready reserve, they would be recalled 1st. The other branches as well... Some have been reactivated to duty, not sure of the exact numbers. They pulled that crap when I was seperating from the army, "You might as well reenlist, they're gonna call you back and put you in a reserve unit."
It will be a nasty situation if they reinstate the draft. I don't give your source a whole lot of credibility, but who knows. The goverment is capable of anything.

But a lot of these soldiers have seen three tours already and their tours are 9-12 months, much longer than they should be.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I am afraid we'll have to disagree there. I think it is an emergency power all Governments are entitled to enact in a situation of sufficient gravity.

I agree. Rights with responsibility.

Though I doubt many would consider Iraq to be a situation worthy of their survice, most Americans are xenophobic and anti-Islam anyway...they wouldn't give a damn.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sod the people's decision. It isn't mob rule; they can elect Governments and that is it. The scenario is incredibly unlikely, though.

A Government would be failing in its primary duty in such a situation if it failed to enact such a measure that would save its society.

In such emergencies individual rights are definiely going to become second place.

Well, i am more for a rational form of a government.

The primary duty of the government is to give the people as muich freedom as possible while decreasing the chance of harm done to them. Society is absolutely unimportant, the individuals are who count.

And the individuals do have the freedom, so the government becomes their enemy by taking it away, surrendering to an enemy sounds like a just as good possibility (if not better) than being forced to fight for a government and society that gives a **** about the individual rights.

Well, again, I have to strongly disagree; I believe socieity is governed by the idea of a social contract and in times of emergency that implies certain responsibilities from citizens. Any comment in which you say "society is absolutely unimportant" is one I totally disagree with, and it is a view that would have led to situations such as the loss of World War II which can hardly be seen as a desirable outcome. I also hardly see your idea as rational.

There is a greater good here in such things. And that's not just cliched talking. The defence of a truly democratic nation against immoral forces that would seek to destroy it is most certainly a laudable outcome thatr goes beyond the desires of individual people in such cases.

There are very few times in Modern Western Government when the needs of society will overrule those of the individual, but an extreme emergency of that type is one such time.

Draft dodgers are cowards.

First of all, in case you didn't know "we" did lose World War 2.

A truly democratic nation is not truly democratic if it doesn't give it's people the choice whether they want to fight or not. So as soon as there is a draft it is just "immoral forces" against "immoral forces" (subjective morals, obviously)..sure you might prefer one over the other for good reasons, but both do things that can be seen as immoral (from a democratic point of view). To nforce your citizens to risk your live for something they do not believe in or do not wish to participate in is undemocratic and unfree. In a case where "society" is threatened to such a degree there should be more people signing up on their own account to protect it. If they don't maybe the society is not that precious afterall and it is not the governments duty to safe something that people are not willing to safe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
First of all, in case you didn't know "we" did lose World War 2.

Yes you did. (Notcie how I don't use quotes around the word you)

Originally posted by Bardock42
To nforce your citizens to risk your live for something they do not believe in or do not wish to participate in is undemocratic and unfree.

Are you saying the US isn't free just because there's a few pussies who don't wanna pick up a gun?

Originally posted by Bardock42
First of all, in case you didn't know "we" did lose World War 2.

A truly democratic nation is not truly democratic if it doesn't give it's people the choice whether they want to fight or not. So as soon as there is a draft it is just "immoral forces" against "immoral forces" (subjective morals, obviously)..sure you might prefer one over the other for good reasons, but both do things that can be seen as immoral (from a democratic point of view). To nforce your citizens to risk your live for something they do not believe in or do not wish to participate in is undemocratic and unfree. In a case where "society" is threatened to such a degree there should be more people signing up on their own account to protect it. If they don't maybe the society is not that precious afterall and it is not the governments duty to safe something that people are not willing to safe.

No, again, I don't agree with you there.

First of all, I don't think it is contentious ion a modern day setting to include all the Western European powers as the victors in World War II., something my old German teacher was very clear on.

Secondly, no, I think you are wrong there; you are confusing what a representative democracy is. So long as the Government is elected fairly and does not interfere with the process of election, then it is under no obligation to give anyone a choice about anything; it is up to them to set the laws, once elected, and if you don''t like what they do, vote for someone else. That's as far as it goes.

You starting to raise a point about subjective morals is an extreme diversion when using the example of World War II because you cross a line into being totally unreasonable if you do not see it as a postive outcome that the Nazis lost in World War II.

To enact laws that require citizens to do things if such things are definitely necessary to protect a democratic nation is perfectly democratic, should Parliament, or whatever representative body so exists, passes such legislation. Parliament represents the people and so by passing such laws they are directly engaging in the essence of the democratic process. It would only be undemocratic if the legislative body was bypassed.

And to refuse your responsibilities in such cases to society is selfish and wrong. It would be to willfully endanger the rest of society by failing in your duty ro protect it. In the case of World War II, we are talking several million Jews being exterminated for a start, and I can only have contempt for those who think that the Allies did not have the right to bring in the draft to defend their own countries and liberate those that had been conquered in order to stop such a global menace.

Your views are simply not rational or appropriate, Bardock, and strike me as very selfish. There are times when there is a greater need than just your own. Iraq is not such a time, Vietnam was not such a time, but World War II was.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Draft dodgers are cowards.

That may be, but I don't remember reading "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. ...and they have the obligation not to be a coward".

Man, that declaration of Independence was ****ing sweet....what happened to that great country...sad...really sad.