Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mandatory Military service and the effects it would have on society
Nolan Chart ^ | December 15, 2008 | P. Hedt

Posted on 01/07/2011 4:58:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

It would raise patriotism and educational standards. It would make citizens take a higher interest in world affairs and politics. It would make society in general stronger, both physically and mentally, and it would make our government officials less trigger-happy. Foreign countries would be less likely to attack America and it would become impossible to take our great country over. Our society would be completely reformed back into a strong nation again.

Upon leaving high school men and women are required, by law, to join the military for at least two years. There is no choice in the matter; if they don't go they get the same rights as a felon. Yes, when a person goes into the military they lose certain rights for a little while, but is that necessarily bad? No. If they have never had their basic rights taken from them they will never place as high a value on those rights, or on the sacrifice their ancestors made to give them those rights. It is a growing problem in America for people to take their rights for granted. Take peoples rights away temporarily and people start to value what they have more; and they start to value their country more. Patriotism will be on the rise.

The men and women that leave high school will have to get an assessment test on their knowledge and intelligence levels. Naturally, they studied hard in school so that they could place high and choose what job they would have; so they could choose where they would be on the battlefield. Of Course, they (and their parents) would take school more seriously they do now, their futures would depend on it. These days a high school diploma is just a pretty decoration you get after twelve years of being babysat. People would become more serious about how their children were taught. How much money and supplies would schools receive in order to teach their children? A lot more then they do now. How much respect would teachers finally receive? A lot more then they do now. Hoe many children would get lost in the shuffle educationally? A lot less then they do now.

After selecting or being placed into a field, the people would go to basic training. This would install discipline, physical fitness, pride, and self-esteem. It would teach them that they could achieve anything they set their minds to. How many people in America could use those traits? Our society would shed the flabby Athenian traits and become a well oiled Spartan machine. How many Americans could have benefited from those four traits when they were first starting out in life? How far would America be today if we were all physically and mentally fit when we first started out?

After going through basic training, they would be required to serve at least two years in the armed forces. In that amount of time, they get to travel the world, learning about other cultures and world events. They gain a wealth of knowledge from their travels. They learn that the rest o the world does not have it as good as we do, and to not take our great nation for granted. They carry this knowledge about world events and cultures with them to teach their children, making the world less America centric to Americans.

Because people would be required to become physically fit, (in order to survive in the military) obesity levels in America would drop causing medical problems associated with it to drop. In addition Americans would be near impossible to surprise because they would all be knowledgeable of combat techniques. No one would dare attempt an invasion, because every man women and child would know how to defend themselves.

The presidents children are in the military; congresses children are in the military. How fast would they be to go to war with the knowledge that their children would be deployed? Not as fast as they were willing to in the past. The government would defiantly become more willing to look at other options before leaping headfirst into a major conflict. There would be more protests from congress if the president went crazy and decided to charge into a foreign country.

The effects of making military service mandatory are numerously good. A chain reaction would take place and American society would reform itself. We would become less ignorant of the world around us. Fewer people would burn flags and take America for granted. American government would be less likely to jump into a war. The children would not be lost educationally and schools would receive better funding. Obesity levels would drop dramatically, reducing health problems associated with unhealthy lifestyle. America would become stronger, mentally and physically due to a chain of events created by making military service mandatory.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: conscription; military; obesity; wot
I don't think Mr., Miss or Mrs. Hedt ever served in uniform.
1 posted on 01/07/2011 4:58:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I hope someone checks in on this individual on a daily basis. All sharp and dangerous objects should be removed from the home.


2 posted on 01/07/2011 5:02:55 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("The Dems have a 'war room' for everything but war..." - Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It works for Israel, but it wouldn’t work here.


3 posted on 01/07/2011 5:03:28 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Both Mr Reaganaut and I wanted to serve but couldn’t for health reasons (his knee and my hearing loss).

I don’t think it would work here.


4 posted on 01/07/2011 5:08:58 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Both Mr Reaganaut and I wanted to serve but couldn’t for health reasons (his knee and my hearing loss).

I don’t think it would work here.


5 posted on 01/07/2011 5:10:20 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Because people would be required to become physically fit, (in order to survive in the military) obesity levels in America would drop . . . The presidents children are in the military; congresses children are in the military. How fast would they be to go to war with the knowledge that their children would be deployed . . . The effects of making military service mandatory are numerously good. A chain reaction would take place and American society would reform itself.

This person is too stupid to have any business discussing our military - is the author a Dem Congressman? The military is too important for freedom to pollute it with the losers this would saddle us with. Keep our military all volunteer, so that they can select from those who want to join and take only the best available. What we have isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than universal conscription. If this nutcase really wants everyone to "participate" in our country, put them somewhere that the ordinary person is an improvement, for example random selection to Congress, which would be a whole lot better than elections seem to be in many cases.

6 posted on 01/07/2011 5:11:26 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Colonial Army that was the foundation of our present US Military was volunteer - and should remain so...

It always amazes me the wide spread personalities that come together - even for a short while - that serve in the US Armed Forces - unique but single...I learned more about our nation and the background of others by being in the military - and would have hated having soldiers that complained that they :had to be there.” - Unless they want it - by free choice - all one would get under what is proposed is a train wreck...that system is not required in the US...


7 posted on 01/07/2011 5:12:14 PM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

A volunteer force is what makes us great. As active Army, i want the buddy next to me to want to be there. Our military is already in a downward spiral. This would make it much worse.


8 posted on 01/07/2011 5:12:32 PM PST by And2TheRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

sounds totalitarian.

Government owns you!!

wow.


9 posted on 01/07/2011 5:12:34 PM PST by GeronL (How DARE you have an opinion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Didn’t Slick Willie and Hillary play around with something like this? They wanted the government to test and evaluate all school children and then start them into their government selected career field from their first day at school.


10 posted on 01/07/2011 5:18:42 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("The Dems have a 'war room' for everything but war..." - Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I want the choice to serve or not. I will always defend my country one way or another. I am not into being in the army as being a tool of the globalists or the new world order folks, or those that want us to fight in order to provide work for arms companies. Which is why at the current time I would not volunteer. Plus at this point in time I am not sure this president’s orders are lawful. Further they have now forced open homosexuality on troops, so until this would be reversed there’s no way in hell I’d put on a uniform under command of people that are so screwed up, I could not trust them.

I’d fight locally as a deputy, or defending my state, where I am.


11 posted on 01/07/2011 5:29:44 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I am a believer in Male only universal, DADT at least, draft for 6 months or at most a year of intense basic infantry training only at 17 or 18 years of age, HS grad or no. No postings. It should perhaps not even be directly under DoD. No enlistment permitted for 6 months past graduation then no further requirement for service.

Being universal it would not be a disruption and no one would be "getting ahead" of his peers by going to school instead.

It would give us a population of young men who are all familiar with the military. Most of the resistance to the Draft was fear of the military as an unknown thing. With all familiar with it no combat or staffing draft would ever be necessary. A war situation would bring a flood of volunteers to serve just because the military is familiar to all young men, it is not a scary unknown and the training has given them character and confidence and instilled a sense of protecting family and country. The thing that undid the old Draft was its capriciousness and the opportunities for rich kids and politically connected kids to avoid it and stay cushily in universities. Make it a part of becoming an adult for boys.

12 posted on 01/07/2011 5:30:58 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is a great idea, until you really think about it. How many pathetic lefties do you want standing next to you in formation? I’ve been there and I can say NONE!
This would collectively bring down all standards the military has, and that may be the reason why Charlie the turd Wrangle and this author want to do it.


13 posted on 01/07/2011 5:45:28 PM PST by vpintheak (Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

In the late 90’s. I believe it was called “School to work.” The state tried to implement it in my very liberal state, and the people were conservative enough to say Hell No — We aren’t paying school taxes through the nose so some bureaucrat can limit our children’s futures by assigning them some sort of menial job training.

Why is it that public school students are victims of every crackpot theory from crazy curricula to all sorts of wacked out social programs? Are public schools some kind of petri dish?


14 posted on 01/07/2011 5:46:20 PM PST by goldi (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BCW

.I learned more about our nation and the background of others by being in the military - and would have hated having soldiers that complained that they “had to be there.”...................................... Yeah I know what you mean, there were 10 million of those type of guys 1941-1945 who fought on 2 fronts, actually 3 when you think about it, not many remember the CBI. They griped an awful lot, won the battles on 3 fronts, returned, made America into a Great Nation and their grand children never realized that they really didn’t want to be there in the first place. Amazing how most of them treasure the experience in spite of it all. Yeah, I wouldn’t want anyone like that to be in my foxhole, you just can’t depend on anyone who was forced to join. Many in my family served in the armed forces, most in WW II, none of them volunteered, a couple came home missing legs, but they never knocked their time in the service. However lasting friendships did result from their time served.


15 posted on 01/07/2011 5:47:31 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear and ridicule the most is the one they fear the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft
There were more than 3 fronts. There was ETO, South Pacific, CBI, Middle East/Mediterranean, Africa, American Theater, Aleutians, Russia, Latin America, etc.
16 posted on 01/07/2011 6:08:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Please donate to FreeRepublic, sanity in a world gone mad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I was wondering how many states are already tracking kids like that?


17 posted on 01/07/2011 6:28:28 PM PST by GeronL (How DARE you have an opinion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Good luck with the Section 8 crowd on all that stuff.

We already spend $15,000 per year for each of them to go public school, and 90% of them can't read a cereal box.

18 posted on 01/07/2011 7:10:52 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Mandatory military service is a form of involuntary servitude.


19 posted on 01/07/2011 7:28:30 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Truthfully, the wave of the future is to limit the use of the US military to real and important missions. Better for them, far cheaper and more sensible for all of us.

The way to do this is to create a foreign legion, somewhat like the French Foreign Legion, but privately owned and operated offshore of the US. Think by a US loyal company like Blackwater, owned and operated by US veterans.

Importantly, this organization would perform some of the most mundane, expensive, and erosive missions the US military is saddled with, yet nationally give us *more* military flexibility around the world.

1) Peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief missions. For the US military to do these “stand around with a rifle and feed people” missions costs billions, uses expensive supplies, and diverts combat oriented commands away from where they should be. And they can drag on for months or years.

2) Conventional African missions. Americans just plain do not want to send our sons and daughters to Africa. We correctly see the place as a pest hole filled with nasty diseases and no, zero compelling national interest.

Importantly, the French learned long ago that such forces must be kept offshore, because in country there are just too many temptations for mischief, from just about everyone. So likely we would put them on a Caribbean island, and when they had signed on to a mission, voluntarily, the US military would provide them with transport and logistics.

Being offshore as well, they could recruit the best and the brightest from around the world, as long as their senior NCOs and officers were US citizens.

Being a private organization, the US could also offer their services to American allies, and unlike with our own people, would have no problem with them being under foreign control.

The use of such private armies was very successful in Europe for over a thousand years, and kept the price of military services far lower than with standing armies. Only when Napoleon created an enormous “grand armee” of a million men was it realized that such a mass could only be opposed by other mass armies. But if such massive numbers are not in question, private armies are much more economical.


20 posted on 01/07/2011 7:58:33 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The military is not what it used to be.

Grunts refuse to require their troops to perform field days because it is beneath them.

Go figure.


21 posted on 01/07/2011 8:02:58 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It would never work here. Our modern weapons systems need intelligent well educated and smart people to operate them. The systems are complex and demand that the operators can think.
This is not what is coming out of our big city high schools today. There are some areas that constantly produce the troops we need. The country folks, kids from the red counties and states make up the vast majority of our military volunteers.
If the military had to take all young people there would be a two tiered military. Those who are smart enough to operate modern weapons systems and good enough to lead these proud souls and the rest would be cannon fodder.
I'm retired military. Stupid people get you dead and in a thousand ways. Having served with a few military members from the inner cities of our nation I can assure you that this is a plan for destructing our proud military services. Every person I served with that was from the inner cities had a huge attitude problem and every last one of them were racist beyond belief. And yes they were all black. Mandatory service for all youth is not a good idea.
22 posted on 01/07/2011 8:13:08 PM PST by oldenuff2no (Rangers lead the way...... Delta, the original European home land security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Interesting that the author is described as a Libertarian??!!
This proposal does not seem very libertarian to me.


23 posted on 01/07/2011 8:21:35 PM PST by bushwon ("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We don’t need no steenking mandatory service.


24 posted on 01/07/2011 8:24:34 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Does America Need A Foreign Legion?
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/new/article056.html

An American Foreign Legion
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_012104_Foreign,00.html


25 posted on 01/07/2011 8:28:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Please donate to FreeRepublic, sanity in a world gone mad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Big ideas but they would never work for Americans. Mogadishu Somalia in 93 was commanded by a frog general and all he did was get a bunch of rangers killed. He didn’t have a clue. Frog culture is good for frogs, not us. If it hadn’t been for the reaction of other Rangers and Marines with their choppers it would have been a lot worse. It does not seem to me that you have any military experience at all. There are a million jokes about the French military running away. They are well deserved. Can you name a successful campaign in the last hundred years that they were responsible for?
And now you want to make the most effective military in the world just like theirs.
Don’t think so.


26 posted on 01/07/2011 8:30:55 PM PST by oldenuff2no (Rangers lead the way...... Delta, the original European home land security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
What it would immediately be is a PC Indoctrination camp. No thanks. I'd rather see End Troop Srenghts to levels those serving now stop being over deployed and our military over extended. There aren't that many bases left set up for basic training thanks to Poppy and Clinton's base closures. No the military even for a few months is not for everyone either physically or mentally. I can think of a few I went to high school with back in the early 1970's that under no circumstances would I want to be in military training with them. Besides it would be Unconstitutional and against the very spirit our nation was founded on to make service to everyone mandatory. Isn't Obama pushing for just such a program or a simular one himself?

I support the Volunteer Military concept 100%. So did Reagan. When our economy went bad in the early 1980's he opened the doors for enlistemnts and let volunteers join. When our nation was attacked following 9/11 neither Congress nor GW Bush called for troop strength increases. We need to do right by the military we now have. That should be the current GOP congressional priority. We as a nation have not been doing such since 1989.

I have a total of 8 years and two services. 4/2 Navy and 1/1 Army NG. All was volunteer obligations. I've seen enough to know that what you are proposiing would among other things be a strain on our already depleted military resources.

I support re-instating no gays, no women serving in combat units or zones, nor especially being allowed to be on combat ships.

27 posted on 01/07/2011 9:02:44 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think it’s a great idea. If all the teens on their way to Harvard, Yale and Wall Street had to serve for two years, it would go a long way toward dispelling the contempt and hatred the ruling class has for the rest of America.

Women could do all the support jobs instead of training for combat, just like in WWII.


28 posted on 01/07/2011 11:03:36 PM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

The whole idea of a rational draft is a fantasy. Can’t happen in America. Won’t happen. Given that, I can describe such a thing as it should be. It should be for 6 months and should be concentrated infantry training, nothing more. The one country that seems to have a similar system is Turkey, or it did 40-50 years ago, anyway. The draft was universal male for one year. I suspect it is the same now. The draftees, however were in the operational army for that year and were posted and used in action. But the Turkish army, if there is a threat or a call, is flooded with recruits and can pick and choose only the most suitable at whatever force level they need.


29 posted on 01/08/2011 5:42:44 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no

The FFL has French officers, but is not part of the French Army.

Battle of Kolwezi (Operation Bonite)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolwezi

Here is the bloody play by play:

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/LuisSilva/00000019.htm

In any event, I cite the FFL mostly because it is the best modern example of a mercenary army. The nations of Europe used commercial armies for over a thousand years, as a much less expensive, yet effective, means of defense.

And yes, oldenuff2no, a know a great deal about military history and operations.

I would also point out that your example of the battle of Mogadishu is a poor one, because that was a French regular army officer directing regular US forces, who generally do not OPCON well to foreign leaders, sent on a mission without their requested heavy armor and other equipment, which was allowed to be compromised from the minute US forces set down on the beach. Mogadishu was a cluster.

An AFL, as private contractors, have no obligation to conduct operations in ways they do not choose, under leaders they do not want, and poor ROE.

I would also like to add that the contractors I have known were all former elite US military veterans, so if you assert that they would be incompetent, you also assert that the US military is incompetent.


30 posted on 01/08/2011 8:19:49 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

As a guy who was drafted in WW II, I resent some of the comments that drafted guys would not fight. WW II was won by draftees since most of the regular army guys were lost in Africa and Italy. Normandy and the Bulge were fought by soldiers less than 25 years old.

Anyway saying that I don’t go along with military service draftees in other than war time. A peace time army would only encourage military action as all presidents seem to want to be a ‘war time president’. Giving them a ready available army would be too much of a temptation.

If Congress formally declares we are at war, then a draft would be appropriate.


31 posted on 01/08/2011 9:52:30 AM PST by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I served with the last of the old draftee Army and the first of the new all-volunteer force (circa 1972).

The new volunteers were head and shoulders better soldiers than the old draftees.

So, I'd say, any suggestion about returning to a draftee military is really an attempt to degrade our forces from today's levels -- which are universally acknowledged to be the best ever.

Perhaps more importantly:

Point is, while militia service was near universal during colonial times, the nation managed without a national draft until the Civil War, and when the draft was applied long-term, from WWII through Vietnam, it was not ultimately good for the military.

Further, unlike past militaries -- which were built on masses of "canon fodder" troops -- the whole concept of war-fighting today depends on the few, the well-trained, the highly-motivated and equipped with the best weapons possible.

These people have to be volunteers, they have to be good people to begin with, and they have to be carefully selected for their roles. In short: they have to be professional.

So in a sense, they have to be the best our nation can offer, not your "average Joe", and certainly not the dregs which can be over represented in a drafted army.

If you ask, how can we maintain adequate force levels without a draft? The answer is: pay them more, and give them more respect where it counts -- in their home communities.

Final thought: America has never been a "military state" like the old Prussian Empire. We only reluctantly raise and maintain barely adequate armies during wartime, and can only hope and pray we don't lose too much military expertise during long years of peace.

An American military today, equivalent to the peak of World War Two, would include nearly 50 million citizens, nearly all of them drafted.

Can anyone even imagine a scenario (short of total nuclear war) in which such a force might be required?

32 posted on 01/09/2011 3:36:39 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

That generation in the US is quite different compared to the generation that one would be pulling service members from. You are comparing the WW II types to a pool of society that shares nothing with the forties/fifties...your comment is so out of line from my MOST RECENT experiences in the military.

What about your service - how tours did you do since you feel the need to lecture me on being unvoluntarily enlisted compared to those that join freely as I did. I di both enlisted and officer - and being a Captain with 4 yours in Iraq under my little unknowledable belt - prehaps enlighten us on that little smart a$$ comment. I just live types like you that jump and bash a comment with information that is not current...no wonder so many drop this sight and never visit it again...I’m pretty much there at this point. Everything you said about your WW II family happens without forced enlistment - the difference is that today’s generation has been brought up on different morals, norms, and values - and IT WON’T WORK!!!


33 posted on 01/09/2011 4:03:51 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

That generation in the US is quite different compared to the generation that one would be pulling service members from. You are comparing the WW II types to a pool of society that shares nothing with the forties/fifties...your comment is so out of line from my MOST RECENT experiences in the military.

What about your service - how tours did you do since you feel the need to lecture me on being unvoluntarily enlisted compared to those that join freely as I did. I di both enlisted and officer - and being a Captain with 4 yours in Iraq under my little unknowledable belt - prehaps enlighten us on that little smart a$$ comment. I just love types like you that jump and bash a comment with information that is not current...no wonder so many drop this sight and never visit it again...I’m pretty much there at this point. Everything you said about your WW II family happens without forced enlistment - the difference is that today’s generation has been brought up on different morals, norms, and values - and IT WON’T WORK!!!


34 posted on 01/09/2011 4:04:03 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BCW

OK, good points, now tell me, how many draftees have you actually worked with? As a Captain how many were in your company? I was in a company made up with about 70% draftees albeit in the 60’s. Great bunch of guys, but then again, many if not most, were college grads from the NYC area and New England. Sure they couldn’t wait to get out, but they weren’t a problem, they did what they had to do and left. They also did their 4 year standby. As one of them I was called up for ADT 2 years later and assigned to a reserve unit as a filler for 2 weeks.

Go to my profile it better explains my point of view. My concern is an all out WW, not a brush fire. When we need a large amount of trained troops, where are they going to come from? How much time will we have to train them and what resources will be available to move and care for them? Your “MOST RECENT” war is not an all out war like WW II. Luckily we are fighting an enemy that isn’t totally sophisticated, and lacks the means to cause massive casualties on the battlefield and on our cities. Its a different war for a different generation and unfortunately it is controlled by PC. I’d still be in if it was up to me, but the Army doesn’t need a 70+ Colonel, or do they? Nahhh.


35 posted on 01/09/2011 7:18:42 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear and ridicule the most is the one they fear the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The “NEW YORK” DAILY NEWS?? Do you really expect the NY’ers NOT to Blame Palin? To the NY liberals she is the most hated woman on the planet. Did you not expect the MSM to get as much mileage as they can from this incident to work against Palin? Its a Propaganda war that is weighted on the MSM side and directed to the stupidity of the dumb-ass voters they cater to.


36 posted on 01/09/2011 7:32:50 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear and ridicule the most is the one they fear the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

BIG OOOOOPS, NOT FOR THIS SITE. I HIT THE WRONG KEY.


37 posted on 01/09/2011 7:34:12 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear and ridicule the most is the one they fear the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft
Bringbackthedraft: "My concern is an all out WW, not a brush fire."

I note your comments and agree with most of them.

Let me suggest some points here:

So, unless someone can convincingly describe a scenario where today's world drastically changes, I think we stay with what we have, while steadily improving over time.

38 posted on 01/09/2011 9:29:49 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Out of curiosity, have we ever had a president with draft-age sons during his administration? The presidents in my lifetime only had daughters or much older children.


39 posted on 01/10/2011 8:00:10 PM PST by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

With due respect - Sir - Draftees of today would be poor. I’m sorry, but present troops that do volunteer are the best the US has. I’m sure that if transcript personnel that were made to serve would do fine only if the work ethic is present. Over the last 20 years - about the time you retired - a major shift in personal ethics and a righteous duty to ones country started to be drummed out of the average US teenager. I have spoken in many school, went to study the dynamics to assess what impact this trend would have if continued towards national security - my results of this is staggering. Those that volunteer are it - that’s what we are stuck with presently. Until things in society change - until the elitist in WASH DC are voted out - and until Christianity and the values that rest on that religion are put back into the school system and pressed into the moral consciousness of every US student - then a draft will not work. From one veteran to another - times have changed Colonel. Those men you served with were from a different time - as a Captain who has earned his combat commander tabs, lead me into battle, and trained platoons of new soldiers and leaders - I do not want any part of a draft until those things above change!


40 posted on 02/01/2011 6:29:37 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BCW

We are talking about a 2 year commitment, not a life long career. The draftees in my time were well educated for the most part, some if not many with college degrees, but as a whole, they came from all walks of life. BTW, how can you say they were different when you never had them in your command? Our young leaders today haven’t been exposed to draftees, the last draft was June of 73, the last draftee could not have been in past 1975, probably before most of the current troops were born.

Back then we all tried our best to “stay out of the military”, but once in, it was 729 days to go, and we’re out. Just do your job, keep your nose clean and you’re out in 2 yrs. I was one of those draftees. Once we were assigned it wasn’t that bad. You might say we were very dependable and we enjoyed the camaraderie.

What happens when the volunteers are out of replacements? Who are we going to call? Not the former draftees from before 1973, although they were trained to shoot and salute, they won’t look too sharp with their walkers in ranks, it also would be kinda tough to pass the APT Test for most. Had the draft remained there would still be a large pool of ready trained troops in the inactive reserve for emergency call up. We had a volunteer force before WW II, how long did they last before we had to call up 10 million draftees? The main point I was making, was, we diminished the backup pool of pre-trained troops we had, when we abolished the draft.


41 posted on 02/01/2011 8:01:33 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear and ridicule the most is the one they fear the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

National Service is a wet dream of the libs.

Mass protests, draft card burnings, “He!! No we wouldn’t go” will ring all over the land. Draft doggers and Quaker homes will be the lead story in the news.

The 1% of drafties who don’t want to be there will eat up a 1SG & Company Commander’s time that could be better spent on their jobs.

Oh, yeah - a libs wet dream.

Hard to chant about not going when everyone volunteered.


42 posted on 02/10/2011 12:00:47 PM PST by PeteB570 (Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids & comforts the shark on it's journey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

Two points on your defense of the draft.

The last draftie was not out by 75 - I’m not sure but I think he retired not too many years ago. A good number of the drafties did reenlist and stay in the Military.

And the point you make about the vast majority of drafties doing a good job is also true.

But the whole point of the libs bringing up the draft is not to improve the military but to help tear it down. Only by having a draft can they bring back the “good times” of the 60’s with protests, draft card burnings, sit in’s, etc, etc, etc. A draft will once again allow the college campuses to explode.

While it would bring in plenty of good troops it would not be worth the social turmoil over the few who don’t want to go - or those that do go but sit on their butts and have to be dragged around.

I served in the Army from 1974 to 1995. I served with many great soldiers - some drafted at first and others straight volunteers - and one odd ball who don’t want to be there eats up far too much leadership time.

Just say no to the draft.


43 posted on 02/10/2011 12:15:20 PM PST by PeteB570 (Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids & comforts the shark on it's journey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877943,00.html


44 posted on 02/10/2011 3:36:38 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft (The candidate they smear the most is the one they fear the most!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

if they are going to make that a law, then i think its only fair that the be eligible for president they have to serve too, like our past presidents


45 posted on 09/21/2013 9:01:30 PM PDT by franny76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franny76

Mandatory Military Service is a form of slavery. The government does not own us.


46 posted on 09/21/2013 9:06:01 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

Hell no.

State slavery.

I’d rather blow up as a suicide bomber than live in a country where everyone becomes a servant of the government.


47 posted on 09/21/2013 9:06:54 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson