Is it getting draftie in here?

[Ronn_Bman]

Because he is an idiot? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

No wait, now I remember, he was unhappy that there was a disproportion percentage of minorities in the armed services. His whole reasoning in wanting to re-institute the draft was to get more white boys in, right?

The thing he didn't mention was the fact that a disproportionate number of minorities volunteered. No one forced them to join. Exactly how is the volunteer method unfair? Seems to me that those who want to join get to join. The solution is simple if the all volunteer method is, in some ridiculous way, deemed unfair. We'll start a quota system based on racial percentages in the population. No more minorities will be allowed to join under any circumstances once their race's quota is met no matter how many may actually want to join. Well just make a person's race the deciding factor as to whether or not someone is allowed to join. There shouldn't be any problem with that should there?

Funny to me though that he didn't make the same complaint against professional sports, which is also all volunteer if I remember correctly.

Should we also revise the welfare and public assistance rolls on a racial percentage basis? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I think that in the unlikely event a draft ever again becomes necessary for actual military reasons you'll find that the Gentleman from New York isn't so in favor of it.

[ 11-07-2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Thank you Ronn.

[ 11-06-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Personally I think they should only draft the pro-war people unless a need for war is clearly about national self-defense. Also, They should start with the draft age children of politicians for combat duty, beginning with the Bush twins.

Should all women suddenly be made eligible for the draft just so Bush's daughters can be put in harm's way? If he had a male child or two could we leave his daughters alone or would they still be included?

Since we're doing it as a punitive measure, and since we're willing to change the standard to that end, why bother waiting until they're draft age? Why not just take all their children?

What about the children of politicians who oppose action? What if those children are actually pro-action despite their parent's leanings?

What if the children of pro-action politicians are actually anti-action? Should they be drafted just to punish their parents despite their personal beliefs?

What if the kids or the politicians aren't completely sure of their position, should we only draft them for part-time service?

My this is becoming confusing...

Personally, I think that terrorists, in their attempts to make political statements, should only be allowed to kill the anti-action crowd who couldn't tell and/or wouldn't admit that something is truly about national defense even if a suicide bomber was standing in their front yard, and of course, it's only fair and just that all their kids should be made targets as well. In fact, we should include all their immediate families as well with no age limit just to make the point.

**PC NOTE** For those who may have missed it, the final paragraph is sarcasm.

[ 11-07-2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The thing he didn't mention was the fact that a disproportionate number of minorities volunteered. No one forced them to join. Exactly how is the volunteer method unfair? Seems to me that those who want to join get to join. The solution is simple if the all volunteer method is, in some ridiculous way, deemed unfair.

Very true - for whatever reason, the choice was theirs and theirs alone.

That said, should a nation ever come to the stage where conscription is deemed neccessary, then that is the point where the rules need to be tightened so that everyone has an equal chance to be picked for service. Safeguards should also be written in to reduce the chances of 'rich kids with well connected parents' from either avoiding conscription or from influencing the posting (to some choice 'home based regiment').

This would mean overhauling the system of exemptions and deferment from service, so (for example), college students should not be exempt from service by virture of their enrollement in full time education, single men should not be preferred over married men, and so on.

And *of course* women should be subject to conscription too...

[ 11-07-2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[antryg]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Conscript armies are useless.

Let's see..... The US began the draft in the American Civil War. The North had a draft and the South didn't. The North won. During WWII there was a draft in the US and the Allies won that war. Vietnam was the "poor boy's can't buy their way out of the draft" war, and it's safe to say that effort didn't lead to a decisive American victory. At least for the United States, conscript troops seem to do pretty well.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by antryg: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Conscript armies are useless.

Let's see..... The US began the draft in the American Civil War. The North had a draft and the South didn't. The North won. During WWII there was a draft in the US and the Allies won that war. Vietnam was the "poor boy's can't buy their way out of the draft" war, and it's safe to say that effort didn't lead to a decisive American victory. At least for the United States, conscript troops seem to do pretty well. [/QUOTE]Axis had a draft as well.

I'd still bet on a professional armed forces over a conscription army ten times out of ten.

At least for the United States, a professional army seems to do pretty well, don't you agree?

[Memnoch]

Hmmm, what happens when you have dual-citizenship (like myself for example) and are currently residing abroad?

Not only that, what if you get drafted by both countries at the same time? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

[ 11-07-2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Seraph]

Originally posted by antryg: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Conscript armies are useless.

Let's see..... The US began the draft in the American Civil War. The North had a draft and the South didn't. The North won.[/QUOTE]The South had a draft, it was hugely unpopular. Infact the Confederate draft predates the union draft by over a year makeing it the first draft in American history.
Also, most (~2/3) of the Union army in the Civil War was "volunteer".

Originally posted by antryg: Vietnam was the "poor boy's can't buy their way out of the draft" war, and it's safe to say that effort didn't lead to a decisive American victory.

The Union draft (which you seem to be a fan of) in the civil war was exactly the same, if you had money you could pay $300, or pay someone to go in your place.

[antryg]

The South's draft doesn't count because they lost and thus cannot be recognized as a legitimate expression of American policy. At least with the North's draft, the draft evaders didn't run or become President.

Personally, I don't believe that a draft is necessary now. I feel that all American troops should be redeployed out of Europe to the war zones and potential areas of conflict that the US Government sees. I am completely confident in the ability of all European countries to police/protect themselves as well as their neighbors without help from the US.

[Seraph]

The South's draft doesn't count because they lost and thus cannot be recognized as a legitimate expression of American policy.

Well if thats what you ment then you should have said it. Your statement that "the South didn't [have a draft]" however is totally wrong.

At least with the North's draft, the draft evaders didn't run or become President.

Both Chester A. Arthur, and Grover Cleveland hired substitues, and then later became president.