Draft in the 21st Century
Options
TheIraq
Members Posts: 5,527 ✭✭✭✭✭
What's the likelihood that the draft could ever be reinstated?
How would the draft be viewed by the 18- 34 year olds of this generation?
How would the draft be viewed by the 18- 34 year olds of this generation?
Comments
-
If another world war starts, the draft will be reinstated.
-
Americans dont have the heart for another draft. Plus warfare has been moving towards less ground troops and more planes, ships, & bombs over the last 30 years.
I dont really see a scenario where we would have to draft more soldiers. Our "Shock & Awe" attack on Iraq was to put the rest of the world on notice that we have the ability to level a country with strictly air power and naval power. Only question is do we wanna occupy and hold territory? Dont see why we would need or want to do that. -
ustreet_monsta wrote: »Americans dont have the heart for another draft. Plus warfare has been moving towards less ground troops and more planes, ships, & bombs over the last 30 years.
I dont really see a scenario where we would have to draft more soldiers. Our "Shock & Awe" attack on Iraq was to put the rest of the world on notice that we have the ability to level a country with strictly air power and naval power. Only question is do we wanna occupy and hold territory? Dont see why we would need or want to do that.
China could be a problem -
Going into the Navy in a year so don't care.
-
They got a lot of people over there, but they're all bunched up along the coast in a handful of cities. They'd be waving the white flag after the first 48 hours of getting bombed.
Until they get a real navy or some better technology they dont want it with us.
People always forget that we havent fought a no holds barred war since WWII. If we took the gloves off it'd be nasty. -
ustreet_monsta wrote: »They got a lot of people over there, but they're all bunched up along the coast in a handful of cities. They'd be waving the white flag after the first 48 hours of getting bombed.
Until they get a real navy or some better technology they dont want it with us.
People always forget that we havent fought a no holds barred war since WWII. If we took the gloves off it'd be nasty.
Lol thats real ? though... Do you think our mounting debt to China would help to pay for their needed military improvements though? And you know Russia would ? with China before they would ? with the US -
I don't see a draft occurring ever again in America. There will be riots and bloodshed in the streets against anyone who forces me to join a war. If I want to fight in a war, I'll volunteer. Otherwise, I will spill pounds of blood and be killed myself before anyone forces me into war.
-
or they'll give you the ali treatment
Ali bumayay!!!! Ali bumayay!!!! If I gota go down that road ? it -
If they exile me to a land with lots of Black women with phat ? , I'll be aight
-
I've been to jail before, I think I can handle it. And I don't think it's legal to send criminals to war but I personally think it's a good idea. If they fight hard for their country, I'd be all for their sentence being reduced or even commuted, depending on the criminal's history and bravery during battle.
-
My only concern is handing a sociopath an M16......whose to say what they'd do with it lol.......on 2nd thought maybe it isn't a good idea. Psychological tests before handing any felon a weapon during war.
-
i agree with this..
just seems odd though, considering how many folks are in prison
if a draft went down, are they really gonna turn down good men?
I'm sure the military would take a ton of prisoners if they pass a psychological test and can prove they are able fighters. If a draft ever occurs, there are a ton of prisoners who would definitely fight if promised a reduction of their sentence. Slaves were given the chance to fight back in the 1860s during the Civil War, and they proved to be some of the best fighters throughout the whole war. -
I find it ironic that so many enjoy the benefits of true freedom - but they aren't willing to fight for the country that affords them those freedoms. The greatest generation is in real decline and will be a distant memory soon. I don't want the draft to come back....but its just a shame that so many show there true nature when asked to do something for their country. Generation X? Y? Z? sure don't impress me. America has lost its moral compass....seriously I feel for the next generation of Americans.
What would Americans be fighting for now these days? Aside from stealing resources from other countries? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »What would Americans be fighting for now these days? Aside from stealing resources from other countries?
There is always a reason when there's a war when it comes to America. After all America is a business, and like any other good business it doesn't start wars and send people to die for someone else just out of the goodness of there hearts.
Resources is the name of the game when it comes to war. -
you ice this ? ever happens u will be seeing a whole lot Americans up in Canada
-
this was a little more complicated than the prisoner notion being discussed, though.kingblaze84 wrote: »Slaves were given the chance to fight back in the 1860s during the Civil War, and they proved to be some of the best fighters throughout the whole war.
also, the best fighters during the Civil War were the drunken soldiers of the Fifty-First Pennsylvania -
Does it really matter? its obvious you wouldn't fight for the country/America with the beliefs you hold. Maybe you're another Muhammad Ali? his convictions wouldn't allow for him to fight them Vietcong as he so eloquently stated back in the draft era.
edit here's the actual quote
based on his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War. Ali stated, "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong... No Viet Cong ever called me ? " – one of the more telling remarks of the era.
Muhammed Ali was right and is a hero to me, one of my favorite people of all time. The Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism. America's war against Vietnam was the height of extreme evil because it was basically a war over money. And no, I wouldn't fight a war for this country unless I saw evidence it was for a good cause. The wars America is fighting now should have ended years ago. -
If America didn't have so many special interest groups and bleeding heart liberals,who think its America's job to save the entire planet. -- J ust maybe we could sustain ourselves on our OWN natural resources? WE need to stop trying to spread democracy around the world...if those in the Middle East can't get along? then just let them fight it out.
LOL so why did Bush, Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Reagan love killing and throwing bombs in the Middle East than? -
eh, you can argue they were fighting an ally.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism.
so here's an example of what i'm talking about when i say "theatrical reactions": you're telling me that the Vietnam War, WHATEVER you think of it, is a better example of "the height of extreme evil" than World War II?kingblaze84 wrote: »America's war against Vietnam was the height of extreme evil because it was basically a war over money. -
eh, you can argue they were fighting an ally.
so here's an example of what i'm talking about when i say "theatrical reactions": you're telling me that the Vietnam War, WHATEVER you think of it, is a better example of "the height of extreme evil" than World War II?
The war in Vietnam was not necessary either way, why sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to protect an ally all the way in Asia? Why not let another Asian country fight for the Viet Cong?? Please.....and yes the war in Vietnam was the height of extreme evil because of it not only being completely unnecessary, but the tons of children who were burned alive over an economic idea. The war in Vietnam was evil and wrong. -
i'm not talking about the necessity, i'm responding to the "the Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism" statement. one can state accurately that they were fighting an ally of the US.kingblaze84 wrote: »The war in Vietnam was not necessary either way, why sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to protect an ally all the way in Asia?
huh?kingblaze84 wrote: »Why not let another Asian country fight for the Viet Cong??
fine, let me be blunt: this is an absolutely idiotic position.kingblaze84 wrote: »...and yes the war in Vietnam was the height of extreme evil because of it not only being completely unnecessary, but the tons of children who were burned alive over an economic idea. The war in Vietnam was evil and wrong.
World War II was not "necessary." tons of children - more than in Vietnam - were killed as a result, and often over ideas far more reprehensible than economics. there's absolutely NO need to claim this "height of extreme evil" nonsense about the Vietnam War unless your goal is to undermine your claim. -
i'm not talking about the necessity, i'm responding to the "the Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism" statement. one can state accurately that they were fighting an ally of the US.
huh?
fine, let me be blunt: this is an absolutely idiotic position.
World War II was not "necessary." tons of children - more than in Vietnam - were killed as a result, and often over ideas far more reprehensible than economics. there's absolutely NO need to claim this "height of extreme evil" nonsense about the Vietnam War unless your goal is to undermine your claim.
Ok my post went over your head, what I meant is that America had no business fighting the Viet Cong, even if they were fighting an ally of the US. Why? Because an Asian ally could have easily fought to protect our "ally" fighting the Viet Cong. Why butt in another nation's business if it doesn't directly affect us? Vietnam was and is hundreds of miles away from America, there was no urgent need for that war.....as far as WW2, it was a necessary war because Japan started the war with America after Pearl Harbor. It was a war of self defense, therefore making it necessary to teach Japan and Germany a lesson. As far as Vietnam, the Viet Cong posed no direct threat to us, and yet we still bombed the nation using white phosphorus that killed, burned, and maimed thousands upon thousands of children, men, and women. It was a war fought over economics, this was proven many years ago after American politicians went on the record to say the war was fought to prevent the spread of communism. It was an evil war and very unnecessary. There was a reason so many Americans were fired up about it. -
hah, no, this is not what happened.kingblaze84 wrote: »Ok my post went over your head-
of course, you could have said this, but... anyway, the point is, there's an argument for why you'd help a US ally with an insurgency (strictly speaking of the VC-SV conflict and not the NV-SV conflict, of course). you DON'T have to agree with it, but many people did think thatkingblaze84 wrote: »-what I meant is that America had no business fighting the Viet Cong, even if they were fighting an ally of the US.
Viet Cong did more to America than support communism? have they been proven right? seems unlikely.
you need to back up this theory with SOME notion of who this Asian ally capable of going to battle for South Vietnam would be if you want this argument to hold merit.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why? Because an Asian ally could have easily fought to protect our "ally" fighting the Viet Cong.
the distance from the US does not mean there was no direct effect, especially in a world where the US can't just say "we're not dealing with anyone outside our borders" and be done with it. and, right or wrong, the Vietnam War was motivated by a Cold War philosophy that stated letting the Soviets (in a general sense) gain ground was an existential threat to the US.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why butt in another nation's business if it doesn't directly affect us? Vietnam was and is hundreds of miles away from America, there was no urgent need for that war...
this, however, is an absolutely cop-out, because the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement.kingblaze84 wrote: »..as far as WW2, it was a necessary war because Japan started the war with America after Pearl Harbor. It was a war of self defense, therefore making it necessary to teach Japan and Germany a lesson.
further, if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam. -
hah, no, this is not what happened.
of course, you could have said this, but... anyway, the point is, there's an argument for why you'd help a US ally with an insurgency (strictly speaking of the VC-SV conflict and not the NV-SV conflict, of course). you DON'T have to agree with it, but many people did think that
Viet Cong did more to America than support communism? have they been proven right? seems unlikely.
you need to back up this theory with SOME notion of who this Asian ally capable of going to battle for South Vietnam would be if you want this argument to hold merit.
the distance from the US does not mean there was no direct effect, especially in a world where the US can't just say "we're not dealing with anyone outside our borders" and be done with it. and, right or wrong, the Vietnam War was motivated by a Cold War philosophy that stated letting the Soviets (in a general sense) gain ground was an existential threat to the US.
this, however, is an absolutely cop-out, because the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement.
further, if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam.
I hear what you're saying but Vietnam was not fought for moral purposes and was fought for selfish economic reasons that did not involve in any way shape or form the SAFETY and PROTECTION of the American people. That's what wars are really supposed to be fought about. I understand atrocities were committed on an even larger scale in WW2, but WW2 was fought for pretty good reasons. Japan and the Axis powers were truly about to harm American citizens. Vietnam on the other hand was fought mostly to protect the economic interests of America, which did not want communism spreading through Asia or the world. That's no different than doing a home invasion and killing everyone inside the house because the killers "needed the money". That's thug tactics which I'm very aware America has been doing for a long time. Vietnam was fought for evil reasons and I'm surprised you don't know that by now. -
first, let's agree that hindsight being 20/20, it's fair to say the war was not necessary for the safety and protection of the US.kingblaze84 wrote: »I hear what you're saying but Vietnam was not fought for moral purposes and was fought for selfish economic reasons that did not involve in any way shape or form the SAFETY and PROTECTION of the American people.
second, the point about the Cold War is that people promoted/backed the Vietnam War on the grounds that it was necessary to support an ally (admittedly a weak and poorly-run one) in the face of Communism (admittedly being secondary to nationalism in the eyes of the NVA) thinking that failing to stand against it WOULD lead to an existential threat to the US. again, do we know now that this was not accurate? sure... but this is unfortunately not something that could be verified at the time.
again, i think you are missing my earlier point(s):kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand atrocities were committed on an even larger scale in WW2, but WW2 was fought for pretty good reasons. Japan and the Axis powers were truly about to harm American citizens. Vietnam on the other hand was fought mostly to protect the economic interests of America, which did not want communism spreading through Asia or the world.
01. "the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement"
02. "if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam"
if you're making it a comparison of evils, then you need to compare THOSE. if it's a debate about which war was more righteous for the US to fight, i don't think anyone's saying it was Vietnam.
i tend to go with "misguided." in some respects this may be worse.kingblaze84 wrote: »Vietnam was fought for evil reasons and I'm surprised you don't know that by now.
