General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm Sorry... If We Are To Go Down This Syrian/ISIS Road To War... Reinstitute The Draft
No college deferments this time... no using your wealth to opt out.
If we're going to do this, which seems unfortunately likely...
Let everybody's skin be in the game.
I don't want a draft, to be clear... but...
I also don't want perpetual war.
See how the politicians scramble at the mention of a lottery draft.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)That is long overdue.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)There's no way women should be drafted before they are guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The women without equal rights who would be drafted anyway?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)but how is this not already canon? I had thought this was common practice in all laws Congress passed and regulations established.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)mandating equal rights for women, and it failed. Since then, the Supreme Court has continued to use the lack of such an amendment in its rulings.
The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and it was sent to the states for ratification. Even after an extension was granted, it failed to get the necessary approval from legislatures of 38 states, and the ERA died in 1982.
Women are not yet equal citizens of the U.S.
P.S. Thanks for asking the question. According to one poll, 72% of Americans mistakenly think the Constitution already includes the ERA. So you're not alone.
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/misc/ERA_why_we_need.pdf
We need the ERA because the 14th Amendments equal protection clause has never been interpreted to guarantee equal rights in the same way the Equal Rights Amendment would. The 14th Amendment has been applied to sex discrimination only since 1971. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in September 2010 that he does not think the Constitution prohibits sex discrimination.
We need the ERA because we need a clearer and stricter judicial standard for deciding cases of sex discrimination. Sex discrimination should get the highest level of strict judicial scrutiny, just as race discrimination does, but it currently receives only a heightened level of intermediate scrutiny.
We need the ERA because we need its protection against a rollback of the significant advances in womens rights achieved over the past half century. With the ERA in the Constitution, it would be more difficult for lawmakers and judges to reverse progress already made in eliminating sex discrimination.
SNIP
An April 2012 poll for Daily Kos and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) found that 91% of Americans believe that men and women should have equal rights affirmed by the Constitution. A 2001 Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 96% of U.S. adults believed male and female citizens should have equal rights, and 88% said the Constitution should guarantee equal rights, but 72% of the respondents mistakenly assumed that the Constitution already includes such a guarantee.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I was aware of the ERA and its failure but thought it was a symbolic gesture more than anything. By "canon" I meant that such a provision was implicit in the 14th amendment. Specifically, apart from Scalia's detestable comments has there been a supreme court case (or lower courts left unappealed) where this made the difference in the ruling? Scalia is one particular bad actor, but has he pulled the court to his position ever?
Thanks for all the great information.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)but I can't remember them now. However, I did find this. The 14th Amendment doesn't give cases involving discrimination against women the same level of scrutiny involved with cases involving race -- because of the lack of a Constitutional amendment. There is now a vague standard that the law can be discriminatory as long as it meets "an important governmental objective."
http://eraeducationproject.com/doesnt-the-14th-amendment-already-guarantee-women-equal-rights-under-the-law/
In the 1970s the countrys highest court began to apply the 14th Amendments equal protection clause to sex discrimination cases, finding it prohibited unequal treatment on the basis of gender. By 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment, men and women could be treated differently under the law only if it served an important governmental objective.
The end result, however, allows courts to interpret the ruling as they see fit, with absolutely no guarantees of consistency from case to case. Courts also evaluate cases of governmental sex discrimination under an intermediate standard of review, and not under strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review that applies to cases of race bias. Claims of sex discrimination typically require extremely persuasive evidence to stick.
So while the 14th Amendment at times has been interpreted to benefit women, it offers them no assurances. Women need consistency and the highest legal protection against discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment would require courts to apply the highest level of strict judicial review.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)that the standard is one of "intermediate scrutiny" as laid out in (the case you referred to) Craig v. Boren (1976) where the supreme court held unconstitutional a law setting different ages for legal consumption of alcoholic beverages. So this is certainly not a case where the "important governmental objective" was demonstrated.
An interesting case going the opposite direction on gender is J. E. B. v. Alabama (1994) where the Court held that male juror candidates cannot be discriminated against in peremptory challenges on the basis of gender.
I am unsure the difference between intermediate scrutiny and the effect of the ERA. It would be interesting to see a real case where the Court decided against the citizen in favor of the government. I have not yet seen this. Perhaps with the upcoming Texas abortion case we may see it.
Thank you for the discussion.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)discrimination by the Federal government. The ERA was broader:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If anything, the 14th amendment can only be taken to apply to the States and not the federal government. The reasons why you would want this to be the case have everything to do with the era in which it was passed: reconstruction. It's interesting to reason if the below applies whatsoever to the federal government (perhaps "The State" = "a state" is a reasonable approach to an argument, but it seems weak to me, but IANAL).
The equal protection clause:
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)I found this case.
What do you think? I wonder if an ERA would have made a difference in the outcome.
http://www.nwlc.org/supreme-court-decision-wal-mart-v-dukes
http://www.shfwire.com/equal-rights-amendment-introduced-after-wal-mart-supreme-court-decision/
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The Wal-Mart case is a tragedy.
I have a few minor gripes: One, even if the ERA was passed it would have no effect on this civil suit as the ERA would apply only to the federal government and states, not private disputes.
Also, the idea that the ERA would have any effect on the 77 cent wage gap is unfortunately unrealistic. The government cannot realistically enforce pay equity directly (see the problems they have had with managing the H1-B situation!). Anyway, I have read that most of the gap is attributable to differing career trajectories (yes, glass ceiling too but...) because of delayed time put into the career for family and childcare. From my perspective we could improve things a great deal on the pay equity side by passing Sen. Gilibrand's family leave act.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)on exactly how if at all this case is different from racial discrimination cases.
One issue is that the Court's decision seemed rather technical and didn't focus on gender explicitly but on the makeup of the class (which was that of females). I admit I am at a loss to explain exactly what occurred in that decision. More reading is needed.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and very cordial conversation.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Time to return to the Clinton vs. Sanders primary ugliness.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)no draft.
Period.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I the nation is going to war, then the small percentage of people who volunteered should not be the only people dying.
If a war is important enough to fight, then everybody fights.
dickthegrouch
(3,151 posts)Every politician involved in the vote to allow it, has to put their skin in the game FIRST.
(not I did NOT say those who voted for it, but ALL of the pols who allowed it to happen (ie including everyone who voted against).)
The people most eager to profit from that same vote should also have skin in the game, i.e. the people selling weapons. If that spoils the game for a few dozen Cheney, Halliburton, and Bush families, too bad! We'll all be better off.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Everybody has to be equal in the sight of he draft board.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)No one will have skin in the game or their children at risk but the poor and the formerly middle class, now working class.
A far better idea would be to have volunteering for service retire student loan debt. A lot of kids who dropped out before finishing would very likely enlist with that sort of inducement. Kids who did finish would be officer material, as usual.
The spawn of the 1% will always skate, all the way to Switzerland if they have to. They will never be drafted. They will never serve unless it's peacetime and they want to go into politics.
you thought about it you could come up with all sorts of negative inducements to prevent the 1% doing that. Take them all. Male and female. Two year mandatory service. Can't carry a gun, you can man a typewriter, mess kitchen, laundry, or even day care center. When you get done you get two years free education in the field of your choice. Everyone needs skin in the game.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)The wealthy have never and will never fight a war. That's just the way things work. You don't have to like it. You'll just never change it.
dsc
(52,130 posts)both WW2 and Korea had all inclusive drafts. It is quite possible to have such a thing.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Served in ww2. One died and the other was severely injured
lancer78
(1,495 posts)N/t
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)I'm curious as to why you would single out the British.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
the draft keeps the majority of the middle glass tuned in politically and opposed to War. The Viet Nam war would never have ended if we hadn't had a draft and so many people paying attention.
Without it, the vast majority seems okay with only the poorest and most unemployed going off to fight corporate wars for empire.
Much harder to go to war if we have a draft, because there really still is the 99%.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Plenty of examples in history contrary but then that was really some time ago. I agree with you, post Korea, though.
former9thward
(31,805 posts)In both WW I and WW II Ivy League schools students joined in mass. George H.W. Bush was the youngest bomber pilot in WW II.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Put it out on the stump...
Challenge the rich and their progeny on their patriotism...
Make it very public, and very loud.
Making people reconsider those that have taken so much from the rest of us, while sheilding their heirs, might go a long way to opening people's eyes.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)son and daughter"
What if his son and daughter hate him and are anti war.
Fuck it, draft Jim. Even if he's 90.
The rich will never participate
WillyT
(72,631 posts)There were stories from both WWI and WWII of able bodied men getting spat upon because they were not "over there" when everyone else was.
Let us at least have that.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)kids to the front line? You think that'd console their parents? You think the rich can be shamed?
No I'm always going to disagree with this. No draft. No money for war. No war. Let those advocating war get up and fight. They won't. We both know they'll never ever put themselves at risk. Their words are hollow lies.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)If we are going to do, what I'm afraid we are gonna do...
Everybody in.
It's the only way politicians would vote against a draft, and a war.
Because THEIR children might be at risk.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)No more war.
I don't think we'd have gone into Iraq if the draft had made the kids of the middle class vulnerable. Yes, the 1% will always escapebut the draft makes the whole country less bellicose, more reasonable, less nationalistic. Looking for any solution other than war.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Universal conscription is the historical norm, the US was an exception.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)French and Polish refugees escaped to England, were trained and returned as organized army units to fight on the European mainland. Polish pilots flew for the RAF.
How come the refugees don't want to fight for their homeland?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore list.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)It is what it is.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)They might want to secure the safety of their families first.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Nt
WillyT
(72,631 posts)tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Please, share your knowledge in this area and direct us to the polls and research involved. You know, some kind of proof of this alleged lack of fortitude?
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)madville
(7,397 posts)The military won't even take 80% of the people that are volunteering now and recruiting goals are still being met for the most part with a couple of the services having waiting lists to get in. I did read the other day that the Army was about 10% short for the year, they'll adjust bonuses and incentives and hit their goal as well.
It's a thought that's noble in nature but not practical or needed. Current professional soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors don't want modern-day draftees forced into service and working alongside them, sounds unnecessarily dangerous and horrible from a morale and welfare standpoint.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The US Armed Forces do not want a not-entirely-volunteer military. Not just the enlisted men...the brass doesn't want draftees in the ranks. They tend to make poor soldiers and have crap morale; I mean I think anybody would have crap morale if they were the modern equivalent of press-ganged into the military.
For this reason, any proposal to reinstate the draft is DOA because it's very-likely that the services will actively refuse the service of draftees. Simply can't make the Army, Navy or Air Force take someone they don't want...and they don't want non-volunteers.
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)The "US" draftees I served with from 1966-69 were every bit as good troops as the "RA" enlistees. The added benefit was a healthy skepticism about the war we were in, which I believe is the point of this thread.
Of course, the Pentagon guys want mercenaries as long as we pay for 'em.
madville
(7,397 posts)But my more recent experience in the military says otherwise. The military of today is nothing like that which existed 50 years ago.
Retention is currently at all time highs and it is being viewed as a 20-30 year career by many more members these days.
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)Although there's some benefit to an all-volunteer force when considering modern technical systems and training to operate them, a "gung-ho" attitude (now it's the "hoo-ah!" crap) easily becomes a mercenary force and then a fascist one.
This is America, and some dissent is a good thing.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)When I was in the Army, I didn't give 2 nickels why a particular soldier was in the service. Some were drafted and some volunteered. Nobody really gave a hoot except the ones that got drafted but they did their jobs. Hell, not all of the Greatest Generation volunteered for The Big One. They did a pretty good job storming those beaches especially considering the Charlie Foxtrot if was on a few beaches like Omaha.
Anyway, my point is, once the military gets a hold of you, they are experts at turning the seemingly most worthless bag of meat into a really good soldier, sailor, marine or airman (person? Screw the AF! lol) drafted or not. Motivation comes easy when your life depends on it not to mention the lives of your new brothers and sisters in arms. It's pretty powerful.
On Edit: I forgot to refer you to my post down thread for my other reason for disagreeing with you. And also to say I'm against our involvement beyond humanitarian aide.
madville
(7,397 posts)Have nothing to do with the current modern-day military and political climate, not a valid comparison.
1985-1991 When was your tour? All this talk from civilians about what soldiers feel reminds me of white folks telling BLM how they should feel.
madville
(7,397 posts)Things changed quite a bit after 9/11. Pay went way up in 2003, I got a 22% raise that year if I remember right. When I left as an E-6 in 2011 I was making about $5000 a month in addition to having no cost TRICARE, Tuition Assistance, Dental, etc.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Long over due pay raise. Glad to see it. I've said my piece and voiced my opinion on the possibility of a draft but let me just be clear: I do not want a draft nor bodies on the ground in the ME, period. We're being sacrificed for oil, money, empire and there is the very real possibility for this conflict to devolve into a religious war. We already hear our own GOP politicians riling up their "Christian" base, accepting only Christian refugees, playing the victim. If that happens, a draft will be necessary to feed the meat grinder.
I'll close by saying we're on the same team and I hope we can respectfully disagree. Also, congrats on being alive. I truly hope you're doing well in body and mind and they don't try recalling you for this. You and your family have given enough.
madville
(7,397 posts)Is that the people don't realize what the modern military is like. 90%+ of those enlisted are never going to see a war zone, the pay is pretty decent now and the benefits are good.
People act like joining the modern military is a death sentence when in reality a small subset, maybe around 5-10% actually have the potential to go into harms way and they are all volunteering to do that.
rollin74
(1,952 posts)the US military currently doesn't want/need a draft
why in the world would we reinstate a draft when the armed forces are turning away a lot of applicants??
pa28
(6,145 posts)Let's see how strong our appetite for war is when everybody's kid gets to go.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And that includes Democrats as well.
Response to WillyT (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)
I did, and my number was 10. I was drafted into the army and my whole life changed. All of us who went to basic training feared that we would be sent to Vietnam. We were pretty sure that was going to happen, and it scared the hell out of us. If you haven't been there, you don't know what it's like. The fear of dying in some strange land is not what I would want to see anyone go through. I was lucky, I was sent to Germany, but a lot of those young men that went through basic with me were not so lucky. They ended up in Vietnam, and some did not return.
I say no to the draft, and if you really think the kids of the 1% would ever go to war, you are sadly mistaken, because one way or another they will get out of it, they did it before and they will again.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)I was 17 when they ended the lottery.
I was worried about my future from around 14 to 17 years old.
Look... I don't want a draft, and I don't want war.
But putting the possibility out their, would pucker the butts of loose talking politicians if they thought the country wanted that as a part of any future war plans. Especially in the Middle-East.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Watching someone get picked and actually being picked is not the same.
Who do you think will put the possibility out there? It would be political suicide to even suggest such a thing, let along do it. As I said earlier, there is now way any of those privileged rich kids would ever see the front lines. Look at what happened with George W. afters his daddy pulled some strings. If you have the money you can get things done, if you don't, well your kids will be on the front lines. Do you have kids Willy? I do, and I sure as hell don't want them being drafted to fight in some war on the other side of the planet.
My Dad had my two oldest brothers' bags packed and ready to haul 'em off to Canada. He didn't understand why we were even in Vietnam and while being a veteran himself he wasn't willing to let his sons kill the Vietnamese people who were willing to be killed for what they wanted.
"But putting the possibility out their, would pucker the butts of loose talking politicians"
I think you're right that just talking about it would dampen the rhetoric and more importantly in my opinion, it would wake up millions of mom's and dad's. Our service members are stressed from 15 years of war. We do not have a fighting force that is at a high degree of readiness and fitness in the numbers that will be required to do this battle. Don't fall for the usual small initial force like the current "advisors" being sent. Mission creep will be rapid and soon we'll have full scale escalation and that means bodies, not boots, in large numbers on the ground.
First we'll have call ups of recently separated veterans (We require 12 years of service. It can be active duty, reserve, Guard or inactive reserve but you're still GI for 12 years) and activation of reserve units. Again, these men and women are stressed from over use. We'll need more soon to replace the fallen and incapacitated. How gung ho will these conservatives be then? Not the D.C. crowd but our Freeper friends with sons and daughters and the evangelists that are too busy hating gay folks to notice that their kids are about to be thrown into a meat grinder. They'll wake up then. But it'll be too late then.
Hopefully, just a rumor of a draft will chill these war hawks down.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)People would probably still have a chance to enlist, rather than be drafted. Not all skin that's in the game is skin that's at the same risks.
Back during Vietnam we called it volunteering to avoid the draft, which mostly meant avoiding combat arms in the Army, and their having complete freedom to do with us what they wanted. I had a low enough number in the lottery to make the jump. I took their tests and I volunteered for four years rather than be drafted for 2 years, in the deal I got into a branch of military intelligence repairing teletype that were used as computer terminals, I spent over a year going to one school and then another.
When I finally earned my VSR and VCR I did it mostly inside a supermarket sized air-conditioned concrete box. The barracks I lived in was a smaller, air-conditioned concrete box. Pretty safe from bullets, ever meal cooked in a kitchen and eaten at a table, every beverage drunk out of a glass.
You know George W also volunteered...for the Texas Air National guard. It was a unit that was a safe-haven for rich kids.
Who with a low draft number, connections, or native intelligence wouldn't look for jobs in the Coast Guard, Air Force or Navy? Who wouldn't look for a military job that didn't mean being spam in a can?
Even with a draft you end up with a lot more poor & minority kids doing the dangerous stuff and more of the rich and better educated suburban kids doing safer stuff. Skin in the game means little, because the game is still a game that a smart person or a person with connections can game.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)"Senator Cruz, since you seem bound and determined to go to war against ISIS, should we institute a nationwide draft to combat this global threat ???"
And ask it to each and every one of them... Democrats too.
I want them ALL on the record.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I don't see "skin in the game" as particularly meaningful
I suspect it's mostly seen as a poison pill to put in the war resolution.. war only if there's a draft, but conscription is so unpopular that such a thing wouldn't pass and thereby kills going to war.
I really doubt it'll work that way, despite the many past calls for draft by Congressman Rangel, mostly because the military doesn't want conscription and the military wouldn't want a resolution that was contingent upon taking in conscripts.
dsc
(52,130 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Yet there are those itching to send the sons and daughters of others, while refusing to send their own.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is a-historical bullshit.
But carry on.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Not a chance, we still have a few more Meltdowns to go. Not going to let America turn into Detroit overnight. You don't drop the frog into scalding hot water, you slowly turn up the heat.
moondust
(19,917 posts)All these brave Republican candidates/neocons are ready to start a major military involvement at the drop of a hat AS LONG AS NOBODY THEY KNOW HAS ANY SKIN IN THE GAME. Each of these terror attacks provides another excuse for them to start a war using other people's kids.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Nationalize industries and turn them into a war machine, stop doing commerce with any country that supports the enemy and ration any items we can no longer import and don't send one more American until Congress votes for war.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)
A deeply unpopular war that went on despite a draft and despite YEARS of massive protests. The reason the war ended when it did was because Nixon got entangled with the beginnings of Watergate; not because the protests succeeded.
Having a draft will solve nothing -- just give the war machine that much easier access to bodies. Forget that.
And those bodies will not be the children or grandchildren of the 1%. They have enough money to make sure that their family never has to serve on the front lines of any war.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)You're exactly right.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)I agree with the posters above who have said that the rich kids will always skate. I'm not letting them forcibly take my beloved but decidedly not rich daughter and son to die in Syria or Iraq.
hack89
(39,171 posts)With the associated costs? No thanks.
Demonaut
(8,909 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Yes it would.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Muslims sign up.
Institute a draft and wars will be minimized.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)History strongly indicates otherwise.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rear in war vs. warmongers knowing their kids will be the first to hit the beach in a new war.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Every single one. And there are lots of them. A staggering number, even if we count all the conquests of native nations under one header of "Indian Wars."
Andy823
(11,495 posts)It won't be the warmongers kids that hit the beach, it will be the ones who don't have rich, influential parents that hit the beach. I was drafted, and in my basic training camp there was not one rich kid in the whole bunch. Look at how George W. got away with "pretending" to be a pilot. One way or another those with the money and influence will get their kids off the hook as far as seeing any kind of active duty on the front lines. Sure they might get drafted, but they won't be in harms way, you can be on that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"It would take a lot of courage for people to vote on this," the 84-year-old New York Democrat said in an interview with Military Times last week. "We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if [Congress] knew their kids might be drafted.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/30/charlie-rangel-draft-fight/70373594/
I'm not saying a draft is a good thing, but wars aren't either. Plus, I believe our military attracts too many gung-ho -- I wanna kill -- types nowadays.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I notice that the only people who say "reinstitute the draft!" are all too old to be drafted. Let's fix that and give these proud patriots their chance to serve. The 101st Hoverround division!
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)When they start drafting me, the shit has hit the fan. 65 , bad knees, can't drive at night, pack a day smoker. Now I might be able to hold my own against a 2 pack a day smoker.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)and I'm transgender so I'd avoid it that way too.
I hate the whole "if you want war, you should to enlist. if you're too old, your kids should have to enlist" meme. That's utterly moronic. How do you know the kids are the same ideology as the parents? Hell they might even be estranged. I'm sure my dad wants war, but I haven't spoken to him in almost 2 decades. Should I get drafted because of him? Dumb as hell.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And one like you say, no deferments.
It is the only way we can stay out of a permanent war...and we have been in one sense we ended it.
But they have sold the all volunteer military to too many people as a solution to kids being "forced" to go to war. Well I say that is a good thing not a bad one. When war is not forced on us it becomes something easy that those who love violence join up for.
And thus we see war crimes committed and blow it off with lame excuses of war is hell.
Fuck that shit, bring back the draft and ditch the privatizations of military jobs.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And how many soldiers died in it?
It lasted more than 10 years and we lost more than 50,000 troops.
The whole reason people then fought to END the draft was that it made it too easy to continue an interminable war. The war in Vietnam finally ended not because of the draft, not because of the protests -- but because the current President, Richard Nixon, ran into a bit of trouble. Something called Watergate. So he suddenly went to the peace table.
Anyone who thinks a draft will make it easier to stay out of an unpopular war is ignorant of history. We don't have to learn the same lesson again. A draft won't fix this problem.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Saw it from the beginning to the end.
And at first things were diferent...all people were drafted rich and poor alike...in fact I served with the grandson of one of the richest man in the US.
Then as the war escalated the deferments came in and that changed everything because those with money got em and those who were poor went into the meat grinder.
But we have been at war in Afghanistan how long now?..14 years?
And we are still in Iraq and expanded it even further, but no problem because we don't have "boots on the ground"...except for the ones that we do have on the ground and the paid private army, and private contractors doing military work, and private drone squads that kill at long range for private profit.
Sorry I think it is bullshit and I want to go back...back where all draft aged kids stood a chance to serve and every family rich or poor had skin in the game...and back to a military that was self sufficient that did not rely on private contractors to do most everything at a very high cost.
But it is not my future it is the young that will have to suffer the big mistakes...and we made some big ones in terms of wars and our military. And somehow they sold it to many of us
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)they actually ENDED the college deferments and switched to the lottery. Remember the lottery? We had a more equitable draft but that didn't end the war. Watergate did.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The war stopped because we were losing it both in Viet Nam and at home.
Watergate was collateral damage from a failed war. Had things went better nothing would have come of it...just like any scandal today.
But the MIC learned the lesson of Viet Nam...conventional wars will not work. Now wars are fought by proxy and with private armies and with high tech weapons. And that has been the case sense the 80s.
Count the wars we have been involved in by proxy or in other ways sense then...there has not been more than a few years of peace.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I don't want the draft reinstated.
I don't want Americans to die in another war for oil, because every time they say "Arab terrorism" they really mean that the oil under their sand sand rally belongs to Exxon and Shell.
I want to see Americans resist military service and say no to this madness.
I want to see the oligarchs know that Americans have rejected their rule and flipped them the bird.
What we need is a political revolution. That's how you stop a perpetual war. And anthropogenic climate change.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)But they're pounding the war drums again...
And the war apes that respond the loudest, usually have the least to lose.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Why use untrained or poorly trained conscripts when professional soldiers are available?
I could never agree.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)She's my only child. I can't have more.
There are too many families with just one child. A draft would have to include them and finally open to women. There's no other way.
I work my ass off so she has a better future than me. If there's a draft as stated above she's screwed. I don't have money to keep her out or to send her overseas to boarding school or what have you. Even the Guard isn't a guarantee of no action. I've known more than a few guard members serving in zones over the past decade or so.
I'm sorry but those who talk about the draft tend to have not a single dog in the hunt.
hardtravelin
(190 posts)I am a recently retired infantryman with 22 years of active service. Today's Army is professionalized to a degree never seen before in our history. And that is a good thing. No disrespect towards conscription era soldiers, but I am sure they could tell you of the effect an unwilling conscript has on the rest of a unit. It is hard enough to train a new soldier to a level required to give him or her the best chance to come home alive.
With regard to equal representation across the demographic spectrum, our military looks a lot like America. Whites make up about 70%, blacks make up about 17%, and the rest are filled by the rest of the other groups. Both whites and blacks are overrepresented in the active military by about 7%.
In short, the guys doing the fighting for this country don't want a draft. Should'nt we ask them what they want, since they're going to be the ones doing the fighting?
For those interested, this is the raw data on our military's demographics.
[link:http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf|
MisterP
(23,730 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)More than all those engraved At The Vietnam Memorial.
20 years vs. Three Days.
You really do not want Ameicans fighting Americans.
akbacchus_BC
(5,700 posts)Days of yore, kings went into battle, so let's see if these draft dodgers will enlist!
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)The military has no use for it and doesn't want it, it's politically nonviable, and you are living in fantasyland if you think that politicians would create a conscription system that doesn't leave an out for the rich and connected.
Not to mention, I see that you (like just about all the other pro-draft people every time this proposal rears its head around here) are too old to be draft-eligible yourself. Easy to say "let everybody's skin be in the game" when you know that your own hide is safe.
applegrove
(118,022 posts)concluded US boots on the ground would have to be forever because the same civil war would just break out again and again every time the us took their troops out. So what is the point of boots on the ground if they can not stay there forever and will never make for a permanent peace. There is no point, thankfully. It has to be the locals or a dirty peace deal involving assad. No good options. But I would say that conscription isn't going to happen in your near future.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Once we've run out of retirees, we can start picking off the overqualified and overpaid chaff of the boomer workforce, open up some slots in the economy for the up and coming massive millennial generation, that really could use the room.
....what, the idea doesn't sound so great anymore?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I believe they go first. I get what you are saying but I always wonder if the 'reinstate the draft" people has a child likely to die first in that reinstatement.
I do get what you are saying but even if the rich were to be drafted like the non rich, they would be given positions of safety.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Don't be silly.
ileus
(15,396 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)And, if your point is that there would be some sort of uprising against war - sorry, but the MIC has the police locked and loaded against protesters, and Washington DC, for the most part, could care less what the voters think. They do not care in the slightest.
No.
Martin Eden
(12,803 posts)The only way the draft will ever be reinstituted is with enough popular support to make it politically viable, and the only way that will happen is if a big chunk of the voting public is convinced the external threats are so significant that we do indeed need a larger army even if that means their own family members might have to go without volunteering.
In other words, a military draft would mean things have gotten much worse.
It means more war.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)have no kids of their own who want to draft other people's children into wars. I think that says it all.