other than a majority of the nation currently does not want to be at war
2007-02-02 10:07:43 · 14 answers · asked by musstoffa 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The selective service never went away. If you are 18 years old, you need to apply.
2007-02-02 10:12:04 · answer #1 · answered by B aka PE 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it would lower the morale and general professionalism of the volunteer military. People who don't want to serve shouldn't be in the military, it's as simple as that. The guys that are the boots on the ground at the moment, want or need to be there. They have the desire to serve our country and they do their best. I'm completely against the draft because though it would increase numbers it would lower skill level. Let's face it war today is a test of skill not which country can afford to lose the most men/numbers like WW1 and 2. I think the better way to increase numbers is by doing more for retension and recuiting. Give current soliders better living conditions and better re-enlistment checks. Second if they gov't would quit giving away federal aid for college like it was toilet paper the education incentives would go a lot further towards increasing recuiting numbers. Why work for an education when you can get one for free?
2007-02-03 10:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by bonnieblue716 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does not wanting to be at war have to do with re-enacting the selective service? I can make it fit the question. Selective Service knows no financial bounds - I have lots of wealthy & underpriviledged friends that served in Vietnam.
1- We do not need the man power.
2- No reason to "assume" we will need more man power.
3- Soldiers serving by force are not as motivated as those who want to serve & join the United States Military voluntarily.
2007-02-02 10:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's not right to demand a person put their lives in immediate jeopardy without their consent.
Because people who don't want to be in the military do not perform as well and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link
Because selective services always tend to be discriminatory in that a disproportionate amount of those selected are poor.
Because it is expensive to maintain an army of the size that conscription would entail compared with all volunteer.
Because public support for the war would be diminished even further.
2007-02-02 10:13:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
From the perspective of those who'd like to have it:
1. It would instigate anti-war activism.
2. It's not needed; America maintains a large enough population of the poor to keep the military full of recruits.
3. It would make it harder to get America's wars approved by Congress.
From the perspective of normal people:
1. Its purpose would be to make it easier to make war against the world's poor.
2. It would force thousands of men into an activity that turns them into killers.
3. America is supposed to be about freedom; selective service is a form of slavery.
2007-02-02 10:15:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The draft does target those that are unmarried, without children, and not in college and under the age of 25. You will still get the same type of recruit you are getting today but just an endless supply. It would tap into the under 25 crowd of low income and uneducated -- those with little or no direction in life yet. It would like picking on them and it would not send our best and brightest to do the job. We would get mired in quicksand conflicts in a worse way.
2007-02-02 10:13:41 · answer #6 · answered by Steve P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not want to serve with someone who is being forced to serve.
As an aside, NOT all members who volunteer to serve are "poor and uneducated." I was in my 3rd year at University (and financially comfortable) when I decided I wanted to explore a bit more of the world around me and, as actively as I could, fulfill my civic duties.
2007-02-02 10:46:51 · answer #7 · answered by leah23 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it should be used to supplement the manpower. but since i am prior service, one should sign and go just because we are Americans, we are all in this fight together, be it in the desert, or along the side of a major interstate. who knows where the next fight will be, the hell with poor the rich, or the uneducated. the red ,white, and blue. is color blind.
2007-02-02 11:51:35 · answer #8 · answered by L1M1J1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can 'democracy' and freedom be defended by forcing people to fight for it. The essence of freedom is that people should be allowed to choose what they are going to fight for, and if they need to be forced to do it then clearly the cause is not important enough.
2007-02-02 11:47:33 · answer #9 · answered by buzzbomb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it may become a sad necessity...i hope the hell not.
I have an idea...why not let we 50's crowd have the option right now to go and serve instead of our kids...I would gladly go now if they would let me, we may not be as fast of foot but we are crafty..and not so much testosterone...I would lay my life down in a heartbeat for my kids..why not now...It may sound stupid, but I think it deserves some thought.
2007-02-02 10:13:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋