2007-02-05 04:59:12 · 30 answers · asked by buzzmanrao69 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Not for this war, but I would support mandatory public service for all Americans.
2 years obligation before you turn 30. You'd have a choice of military, coast guard, police, EMT, border patrol, or Peace Corps.
That would ensure a more internationally minded and tough and sympathetic mindset amongst Americans.
2007-02-05 05:04:18 · answer #1 · answered by Year of the Monkey 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My honest opinion would be if there were a draft (only if it were necessary), I wouldn't have a choice. Everyone has their own opinion and it's usually how you look at the glass- is it half empty or half full. The military only takes the orders and does their job. The military is here for a reason, I think they should have all the support they need. If it comes down to a draft, then I'm all for it. But only if I'm the one that's not drafted of course :) j/k
2007-02-05 13:14:16 · answer #2 · answered by littlemsbrunette185 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. So long as the children of members of Congress and the president were the first to be drafted and that they would be sent to the front-lines. This should also be required for any "war resolution" the Congress passes. This would eliminate most military conflicts. Imagine George Bush's twin daughters being shipped off to Iraq. There would be no Iraq war.
Should those members of Congress/the president not have children, the requirement would be closest other relatives, and if there are none, then the sons and daughters of their best friends.
2007-02-05 13:08:46 · answer #3 · answered by Chris I 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes , yes I would why not make this war everyone busniess. we are already extending peoples tour of duty four to six months and the backdoor draft has been in effect for more than a year now. people can only be deployed into war zones so many times . do we send them two, three maybe four tours, the same people can not be sent indefinitely.
2007-02-05 19:03:56 · answer #4 · answered by bmims 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not a draft, but a mandatory military service when you graduate like Isreal does. It would build character and teach basic military training which might be needed later.
2007-02-05 13:25:00 · answer #5 · answered by Robert and Tanya 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, as a 20 year veteran I know that an all volunteer force is much more motivated. The left wing argument that the all volunteer military is made up of kids from poor homes is a lie. The military demographic across the board is more affluent than it has ever been.
2007-02-05 13:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by jrrysimmons 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Everyone who voted for Bush already supports a draft. It's called "stop loss". Soldiers who have completed their obligation are not allowed to leave; if they've left, many are called back.
2007-02-05 13:07:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No...but only to a point...
Having an all-volunteer military promotes the highest quality military force available, but if that force is depleted, or stretched too thin, and more manpower is required...it would definately have to be a "no choice" kind of situation.
2007-02-05 13:13:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if the draft applies to those in favour of the Iraq war. Those who are against it are exempt.
If any pro-war clowns pull a "George Bush" and run from their obligation, they get sent to Guantanamo as prisoners.
.
2007-02-05 13:09:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2007-02-05 13:41:31 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋