StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

Cogressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) annouces that he is preparing a proposed bill to reinstate the draft.

Thoughts anyone?

Personally, I think it's got a snowballs chance in hell of succeding.

It won't happen and would be a mistake in any case.

The current US Armed forces have shortfalls in personal, but the draft won't solve the real problems of retention of those the military and building up a bigger core of chiefs and NCO's in the services. Far more likely it will make these problems all the worse.

Its already hard and expensive to train a solider and have them leave after four years, cutting that to two would be just awful and require the US Army at least to have some major reorganizations.

As someone who is too old to be drafted, and not American, I fully support this bill.

Is there any chance I can get rejected from a draft because of my asthma?

Hmmm, a bad idea unless we really need too. Not too mention us drafting all the stupid people. I think if anyone goes first they need atleast an normal IQ curve and they are unemployed. Think about having a few thousand Cleetus' in the world's current best Army.

*shakes head*

I don't understand it. No one should be forced into military service. Just because innocent people live in America doesn't mean they should [right-wing nut] learn the values which America lives by.[end right-wing nut]

As I say, I just live here.

HemlockGrey wrote:Is there any chance I can get rejected from a draft because of my asthma?

Probably. I had it too a few years ago. They'll put your ass on a boat I'd assume.

In the modern Army the draft would almost be useless. We dont need legions of quickly trained Infantry which is what you get with a conscript Army, but we do need professional dedicated warriors who are willing to stay in after their initial hitch is up. the best way to do this is to improve the pay and benefits for our soilders to the point that it becomes a more enticing career option than leaving for the private sector.

As to asthma , anyone who has a chronic condition that requires regular medication is not out of the draft, but will be weeded out when you get your physical. the logic goes that your dependence on meds makes you a combat liability rather than an asset. (Think of the difficulty of getting asthma meds into someplace like Khe Sahn or Chosin Resevior)

Charles Rangel wrote:I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the Free World against the threats coming to us

Everyone does have an oppertunity, except of course people who don't meet physical and mental standards or who are openly homosexual. Not to get off topic with this, but let the homos serve. I don't give a fuck about someone's sexual orientation.

When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress...

Actually, nowadays, when you talk about a war, you're talking about aircraft, you're talking about officers. (this is judging by the Gulf War, furure senarios could be different) I wouldn't be suprised if a larger percentage of officers than enlisted were killed during the Gulf War.

I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway'.

I must say that I do agree with the congressmen on his supposed motives. If more congressmen had sons and daughters in the military, then they would use the military more conservatively, and with more caution. But you must remember that congress has not declared war in 60 years. It's the president who's been running the show ever since Korea. Congress can give their disapproval to a military operation, but them having the actual power to recall troops is somewhat sketchy.

As to my personal opinion on the draft, I would not want to serve along side unmotivated conscripts sent to me coutresy of the draft. If the time comes that we have to fill our ranks quickly, and substancily, then the draft may be necessary. As of now, it is not.

Alex Moon wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

Cogressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) annouces that he is preparing a proposed bill to reinstate the draft.

Thoughts anyone?

Personally, I think it's got a snowballs chance in hell of succeding.

it prolly wont suceed, but in my admittedly unresearched form, I like the idea. I also like the concep tossed around in my history class - three sections to be drafted to, homeland security, national reserve, and army. that would include a universal draft, too. . . everyone of age in uniform for 2 yrs.

course, that would change society a bit. but then, it may become needed with terrorists wanting to fight a shadow war and bush wanting to take down tyrants.

From the article:

Quote:
I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway'

That say's it all right there. It is a purely political move to scare people against any move of the current Administration against Iraq. If there is a draft, which I don't think it will happen, then people who don't want to fight but are forced to will be politicaly against the Administration rather than the ones who voluteer to join the military and who might disagree with what the Administration does but who voluteered for the possibility of war. I think this is a shameless example of scaremongering.

I fail to see why we require more cannon fodder to invade Iraq. The military is an environment in which citizens are stripped of their rights, and citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law.

A president's cavalier attitude toward finishing Daddy's business is not due process.

Durandal wrote:I fail to see why we require more cannon fodder to invade Iraq. The military is an environment in which citizens are stripped of their rights, and citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law.

A president's cavalier attitude toward finishing Daddy's business is not due process.

Which is probably why a political advisary is proposing the legislation.

The Honorable Mr. Rangel can go fuck himself. Someone needs to read up on the concept of democracy. I'll volunteer when and if Uncle Sam truly needs me, but not before.

The congrass critter isn't looking for a way to improve military effectiveness but rather for a way to curb US military adventurism. It's good politics and a good goal but all a draft does for an armed force is provide legions of illtrained cannon fodder who won't do much more than come home in bodybags.

A draft is needed, if we are going to war we will need everyone we can scare up to fight..

I for one am 19 so I'd be nailed real quick, though i *could* easially get out of it without lying, I wouldn't bother getting out of it, cargo planes or ships are fine by me.

Hyperion wrote:A draft is needed, if we are going to war we will need everyone we can scare up to fight..

Considering the number of forces the US already has, vs. what's going to be sent to the gulf and what will oppose them, I think not.

Hyperion wrote:A draft is needed, if we are going to war we will need everyone we can scare up to fight..

I for one am 19 so I'd be nailed real quick, though i *could* easially get out of it without lying, I wouldn't bother getting out of it, cargo planes or ships are fine by me.

You can relax Hyperion, while a war in the Gulf will take more than a platoon of Marines and a flight of F-15's it will not take the majority of the presant level of American forces. If you want to voluteer, go ahead but don't buy into any of the scare mongering.

The difference between a professional and conscript force is overstated. In a major war, the original professional part will soon be reduced to nothing because of attrition- and then whether those that take their place are there because they're conscripts or volunteered doesn't matter much.

Yes, but in that major war you'll get volunteers anyway. Thus, why the forced enlistment?

Howedar wrote:Yes, but in that major war you'll get volunteers anyway. Thus, why the forced enlistment?

Sometimes you need more troops than the rate of volunteering can provide. Though for America this is HIGHLY unlikey.

But in a truly major war (WW2 for example) then people are going to be scared/angry/whatever enough that you're going to get a lot more volunteers. And I guess if all else fails, then this major war is when you start drafting. No reason to start now.

Vympel wrote:The difference between a professional and conscript force is overstated. In a major war, the original professional part will soon be reduced to nothing because of attrition- and then whether those that take their place are there because they're conscripts or volunteered doesn't matter much.

The difference is if the next wave of troopers are well trained or are there expressly for cannon fodder. Moral is important in battle and if the troops are not trained well nor willing to be there, then moral is shit and an advantage is lost.

Howedar wrote:But in a truly major war (WW2 for example) then people are going to be scared/angry/whatever enough that you're going to get a lot more volunteers. And I guess if all else fails, then this major war is when you start drafting. No reason to start now.

Oh I agree with that. No nation I can think of needs a conscript army right now.