|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 3, 2004 18:55:21 GMT -5
Really? I never heard of that... hmmm
But yeah, as Ali said, it our borders don't mean much anymore. But the war in Iraq (which is what the draft is for presumably) does not seem to be a threat to terrorism. Ironically, it has been an excuse for the fundamentalists to recruit more people.
Now, I am not saying that this war will never pay off, but I feel that the U.S. could accomplish much more with diplomacy in the long run, than if we relied only on troop power.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 3, 2004 21:11:55 GMT -5
yep... although our wars in foreighn soil have gained us much in the way of short term goals... long term it ruins our relations with those countries.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Jun 5, 2004 21:02:36 GMT -5
Rangel is trying to make it so that it is almost impossible to fight a war without broad public support. He's saying that if a war is justified, you shouldn't have to bribe people to fight. The current system enlists mostly poor minorities hoping to get an education, and so the poorest member of our society take the greatest burden for the war. The draft, would spread the responsibility to everyone, and if no one wanted to go, you couldn't fight a war. So in a strange and convoluted way, it's actually a pacifistic idea.
"In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 70 percent of respondents said they would oppose re-instating the draft.
That's exactly why Rep. Charles Rangel is pushing for it: to raise the bar of public support before the nation can be committed to any future wars."
He also sort of wants it to fail, but to be debated, and raise public awareness about the cost of war.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 6, 2004 0:20:24 GMT -5
interesting... that is one dedicated politician. Hes sacrificing his job (sort of) in order to save the country! I want him as president!
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 6, 2004 0:55:36 GMT -5
I'll probably get drafted... ...and then court marshalled for sleeping at my post ...
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jun 6, 2004 0:56:41 GMT -5
they won't be able to tell, yr so tall
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 6, 2004 0:58:03 GMT -5
Why being tall is bad sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Jun 6, 2004 10:12:20 GMT -5
Actually, Nick, I don't think they would put a gun in your hands... My friend was talking to one of those army guys that walks around our school, and he said that if he joined, he would have to be medical or something... Too tall to be put out in the field, to easy a target.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jun 6, 2004 15:02:30 GMT -5
and I know there is a height limit for the NAVY, at least
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 6, 2004 19:47:55 GMT -5
Cool. So I couldn't even join if I wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 6, 2004 21:19:16 GMT -5
hmmm, I would probably get drafted as an infantry man if I did get drafted...
I don't know much about the draft policies. Do they let you choose a position in the military?
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jun 6, 2004 21:53:37 GMT -5
no, but if you get drafted, or are going to be drafted for sure, its better to join something other than infantry before you're called in, its what my uncle did and he ended up as a mechanic in the navy during viet nam
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 7, 2004 18:10:51 GMT -5
Rangel is trying to make it so that it is almost impossible to fight a war without broad public support. He's saying that if a war is justified, you shouldn't have to bribe people to fight. The current system enlists mostly poor minorities hoping to get an education, and so the poorest member of our society take the greatest burden for the war. The draft, would spread the responsibility to everyone, and if no one wanted to go, you couldn't fight a war. So in a strange and convoluted way, it's actually a pacifistic idea. "In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 70 percent of respondents said they would oppose re-instating the draft. That's exactly why Rep. Charles Rangel is pushing for it: to raise the bar of public support before the nation can be committed to any future wars." He also sort of wants it to fail, but to be debated, and raise public awareness about the cost of war. That is interesting. If the reason that Rangel is proposing this, then I actually support his intentions. It seems like most wars are commanded by those who never need to fight them, hence giving those in charge a carefree attitude about the actual cost in war. This might wake them up. However, I slightly disagree with the idea that if everyone had to bear the burden of war, that a war would not happen. In the military, one must listen to orders. Even if many people did not want to fight a war, they would be scared into following orders to avoid the consquencies of disobediency. Therefore, even if the majority of the soldiers did not want to have a war, it is possible that it could still continue as walking out or complaining isn't an option. For example, many totalitarian governments put their conscript armies into wars regardless of whatever the people thought.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 7, 2004 23:30:28 GMT -5
no, but if you get drafted, or are going to be drafted for sure, its better to join something other than infantry before you're called in, its what my uncle did and he ended up as a mechanic in the navy during viet nam Absolutely true. If you're drafted, re-enlist and you get to choose a better position. My dad did this too and instead of getting blown up in Vietnam, he got to tour Germany while in the Signal Corps. It means you're in the army for another year, but you can avoid some rather unpleasant fighting.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jun 8, 2004 16:03:44 GMT -5
yup, and it can play to your skills as opposed to having a rifle shoved into your hands and told not to die while being shot at
|
|