With all the terrible things going on, do you think so?
2006-07-19 14:17:14 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The Republicans do not want a draft because a conscripted army is sensitive to the politics of the rational of going to war. The Democrats are split on this issue. Some want the draft reinstated for the very reason that the Republicans do not want a draft.
Having said that, I do believe that there will be a draft within the next 2 to 3 years because of the rising tensions, I don't think anyone is ignoring that we are in a tense situation right now. As much as I would like to blame Bush, I think it is more like situations that have been brewing since the 40s and 50s are now becoming critical.
2006-07-19 15:07:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Despite the fact that Charles Schumer supports the draft (since it requires rich to serve next to poor), we don't have a need to reinstate the draft. We are continuing to train Iraqi and Afghani troops, and as they come online the need for American troops declines.
For a draft to be reinstated, there would have to be compelling evidence that our reserves could not handle everything - and right now we still have reserves that can be called up and redployed from elsewhere in the world (Eastern Europe, etc...).
2006-07-19 21:51:16 · answer #2 · answered by Some Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a rumor going on before the last presidential election. Good thing it was only rumor. I do believe, that in the future there will be a draft. But as of now, as long as they have plenty of volunteers, and with the military's stop loss programs......you shouldn't have to worry about that anytime soon. Best of luck to you.......
2006-07-19 21:25:31 · answer #3 · answered by cajunrescuemedic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sure hope not.
There are so many messed up Vietnam war veterans over here (Australia) who were forced to fight in a war they didn't believe in and then were treated badly by the government when they got back. My Dad would have put up a consciencious objection and gone to jail if his number had of come up.
I think being that Bush has raised a culture of fear in the States, and along with the notion of the 'right to bear arms' there will be a sufficient number of volunteers putting their hands up to fight any war that Bush might partake in.
2006-07-20 18:26:40 · answer #4 · answered by Aussie Chick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question should be:
Can the U.S. Budget sustain a swelling in the area designated for military expense?
Look up the World Almanac under U.S. Budget. Two of the biggest expenses are social services and the military.
Take them out, and we can handily balance this monster.
So, to answer your question, it wouldn't be economically feasible given the huge expenses of keeping it going plus added expenses of unneeded wars and natural disasters.
What's needed, and I hope everyone can understand...is a different approach utilizing more technology and less manpower to combat an unrecognizable enemy in need of definition.
Keep our fine military on hand for those natural disasters that keep piling up!
2006-07-19 21:29:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not unless things get really bad. I don't think either party wants Draft under there name on the ballot come November.
2006-07-19 21:22:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They didn't reinstate the draft after 9/11, so I'm thinking we are cool for awhile. Just be sure that you have registered.
2006-07-19 21:23:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The reasons have been spelled out numerous times in the news. Read the news.
2006-07-19 21:22:21 · answer #8 · answered by gtoacp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If things keep going the way their headed I'm pretty sure it will.
2006-07-19 21:24:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would certainly get people involved in the war. Also, if they do, I think women should be included.
2006-07-19 21:23:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋