I think the reality of the draft be re-instated is a lot closer than most people choose to believe. We have troops in 119 different places world wide. We have had to extend the time for a tour of duty from 12 months to 15 months. We have had to call in to active duty many, many reserves. We are sending soldiers out to combat still wet with sweat from basic training. We have drastically lowered the recruiting standards. We are spread so thin, it is doubtful we have enough ground troops to protect America if an attack to pre-empt a war were to happen on American soil.
The Department of Defense has already been discussing this for some time, just because they haven't yet, does not mean they won't.
2007-04-20 10:01:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Military can still make the mission - The Draft has nothing to do with the war. The reason the draft is constantly bantered about is that it is a leveler of the playing field of recruits for the military. It really has nothing to do with numbers (this current ideation of discussion) other than some people (mostly dumbocrats) want to try to force all men and women in to mandatory military service with some able to get out of it through connections or deferments. This is the route most of the losers running the government today took during Vietnam.
While quite a few people will disagree with the notion, the military can and will make its recruiting standards through incentives, bonuses and those people who still think the military is an honorable service. If the army said they would pay $100k enlistment bonus tax free for each infantryman for two years (one in training and one in Iraq) do you not think quite a few people would sign up? Currently the marines are turning away people with visible tattoos according to the news so they cant be hurting to badly.
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan
2007-04-20 09:57:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by patrsup 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nobody likes the draft. But with the current state of the US military and the low number of volunteers, it's possible that we might need one.
I think that if the NEXT President can do a good job of convincing people that he would NEVER lead us into an unnecesary war, adopt the Powell Doctrine, and do something to raise soldier's pay and benefits, he might be able to stop the bleeding and get the military back to normal levels.
But at this point, it's a long shot. I mean, suppose you had joined the Army in 2000 under Clinton? You would still be in Iraq today, since your commitment ran into the next idiot's term. Who would join the military in 2010, for instance, not knowing what sort of Idiot-In-Chief we would get in 2012?
We need to abolish the War Powers Act and REQUIRE a Congressional Declaration of War before US troops can be deployed to a hot zone. That might convince young men and women that we are serious about not sending them to war without valid and compelling cause.
2007-04-20 10:06:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Does the yank protection stress actually have napalm anymore? i do not imagine so and that i paintings at ordnance mag for the period of my annual energetic duty practise. As for the images, if the U. S. does no longer have napalm, then how can the images be genuine? You not in any respect offered a link so as that they human beings can decide for themselves. BTW. "dumdum" Napalm and white phosphorus are 2 quite some issues. you need to recognize what you're speaking about formerly ranting. And so could Ron Paul: white phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon. >"dumdum"- observe that the newspaper article that you cite is from April of 2003, even as Saddam replaced into nonetheless in power and those Marines were being antagonistic via his Iraqi military. it truly is not any longer napalming children.
2016-12-04 09:19:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes and especially if someone like John McCain is elected as our next President.
(I've always supported the draft and do not believe in an all volunteer military - primarily because it's the people who DO NOT WANT TO BE THERE who keep the military honest and less capable of coup de tats. I spent 7 1/2 years in the Navy.)
2007-04-20 09:54:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ben 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. The threat of the draft is a political tactic by the dems to further errode what little support there is for the war. Though, if there were, and we had draftees running to Canada, or smoking pot and shooting thier officers, the resemblance to Vietnam would be complete.
2007-04-20 09:55:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If there is a draft many liberals like yourself will be exempt from serving in that the military even during a draft still has strict policies against drafting mommas boys, bed wetters, nose pickers and those with gender identity issues which will surely exempt you on all counts.
2007-04-20 09:54:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by dr_methanegasman 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
I can't wait hopefully it will give you a chance to join the party. You can teach the Iraqis to stop blowing **** up, stop letting mean people into their country, and most of all love one another in the spirit of Allah and the war will be over. See how simple it all really is. If you liberals would stop bitching and blaming and show some initiative over there this thing would have been solved along time ago. After all a terrorist is just somebody who is misunderstood and needs a lot of love, right?
2007-04-20 10:10:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
NO you watch to much news.
The Iraqis need to start up the draft to fight each other for control while we invade Iran with planes and missiles, I do think they should employ and send illegal Mexicans to Iraq as recruits and they could get citizenship over in Iraq, that would put a twist on things.
2007-04-20 09:56:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by man of ape 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush has said time and again he wont' reinstate the draft. And I don't get your drift about our military being weak. Lack of leadership? I think you're listening to much to the liberal news. It's fried your brain.
2007-04-20 09:53:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by arwenlotr2 3
·
5⤊
1⤋