at one time. If this is a conflict of epic proportions like WWII shouldn't we have a draft? If this is truly a struggle between good and evil and for the survival of our country, shouldn't every resource be mobilized? The facts belie the rhetoric of this administration. Our current military is much smaller than the one I fought in during the Vietnam War. We are asking a very few to do what a much larger force would struggle with, so why not have a draft? The answer of course is that it would be political suicide. This is not WWII or even Vietnam.
2006-09-03 19:05:21 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
George shouldn't go making comparisons, because as we agree Mr.E ....George can be compared to a portion of our anatomy that is in our chairs right now, unless of course you are standing.
Bring our brave men and women home, let's fight the war on poverty, drugs, health care, and literacy. And it's one, two, three, four, what are we fightin' for.........
2006-09-04 05:28:55 · answer #1 · answered by Sanitizer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
(1) The cost of training, equipping, and keeping even a single combatant in the field has grown so much that only a small force is justifiable. It costs too much to train some draftee that you will only lose in 18 months or so back into the civilian populace.
(2) When you start drafting, you draw in a huge influx of Category 4's. You bring in sociopaths, degenerates, and others who can't deal with authority or society well in the first place, give them weapons, and expect them to perform peacekeeping duties. To expect such well-mannered behavior is fantasy. Communities are no longer as close knit. People are not as well behaved or patriotic. Drugs and broken homes are rampant, and the product of those evils run in gangs. You want to bring those into a draft?
(3) An all-volunteer force best fits the ideals presented in our Constitution. To force everyone from pacificts to criminals against their will to participate in what is essentially supposed to be an endeavour of civic duty in defense of one's way of life violates every notion of freedom guaranteed in the United States.
(4) There are better ways to criticize the incumbent President than to force those already in uniform to babysit complete idiots who may or may not shoot their betters in the back, and to make the troops watch scarce defense dollars go towards recruiting, training, and deploying complete wastrels. There is no need for a draft. The casualties do not justify a draft. The pace of combat does not justify a draft. An expansion of active duty services, yes. But not ever a draft.
2006-09-04 08:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by Nat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a war against an expansionist enemy that is attacking nations all over the world. Multiple nations have formed an alliance to fight back. However, a draft would not be appropriate. The enemy is not an organized military. This is not a job for massive manpower and numbers of tanks. It is instead a job for spies, detectives and focused strikes.
If it becomes a war against specific nations and we lack the manpower to tackle that task, then a draft would be appropriate. I think it would be wise right now for High Schools to reopen their rifle ranges and restart the firearm safety and marksmanship programs. We learned a hard lesson in WWII when comfortable city kids were asked to fight - they were afraid of guns. Americans should never let themselves sink that low again.
2006-09-03 19:14:15 · answer #3 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can understand why some people are comparing it to that. Its not really the number of troops but just the fact that there are so many countries involved. When you involve more and more of the world in a war, its starts to become more like a world war. I wouldnt go that far though, at least not yet.
2006-09-03 19:12:28 · answer #4 · answered by A* 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even close. The American people were united during WWII against Germany and Japan. Now the country's divided. No need for draft.
2006-09-03 20:30:27 · answer #5 · answered by tyrone b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it fairly is what i think, There are some who hates an answer so badly that they only hit the "checklist abuse" button. no longer which you answer is worse than others as far because of the fact the regulations bypass. that's not inevitably the asker that comments your answer...that's absolutely everyone who's perspectives are diverse. i think of that's barely that some do it "because of the fact" they might. enable's settle for it politics incites some solid emotions on the two components. I had a query deleted that became interior the regulations even nonetheless it became with regard to the incarcerated border patrol brokers and somebody took offense i assume...I do have solid emotions on the subject. playstation You do comprehend of course which you're a sprint blunt?
2016-11-06 09:27:41 · answer #6 · answered by shea 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is incorrect in associating nazism with terrorism. It sounds great though to the ignorant.
Bush also said saddam was a huge threat to the world, which is why saddam was defeated handily by a mere 100,000 men in 2 weeks.
If Saddam was nazi germany, saddam would have owned all of europe, most of the USSR, and all of north africa as well as the middle east.
Its just desperate scaremongering by a president who has no clue.
2006-09-03 23:26:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Bush, as most of the world knows, is an idiot.
Adding a question mark to the end of a sentence does not turn it into a question.
c
2006-09-03 19:12:18 · answer #8 · answered by joker_32605 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no this is not WWII, in WWII there were countries against countries. This is just a few nations against a small group that doesnt own any government
2006-09-04 01:12:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is trying to fight a big war with too few troops.... the comparison is camouflage.
He also calls Islam a religion of peace.... what a laugh... it is an ideology of hate from what I see.
2006-09-03 19:11:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋