What is their obsession with forcing people into the military...cant they see that our present army is the best in the world, nobody can beat it..so whats the point of dragging up the draft? Just because the dems under Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson drafted so many people doesnt make it a necessity nowadays does it???
2007-05-21 02:01:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
hey stepanie...would you prefer those few thousand terrorist be free to plan attacks on the usa..............i like the fact that Al qaeda is in a quagmire in iraq
2007-05-21 02:15:39 · update #1
They're fearmongering in the hope that the draft will scare people into voting Democrat.
2007-05-21 02:05:46 · answer #1 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Another dig at the non-existant 'liberals', the all purpose strawman of the right wing talk show idiots. Buy a clue.....the WAR was won a long time ago, and I might add by a military that these same beanheads accused of being 'gutted' by the Clinton administration. Buy another clue... This is an occupation now, not a 'war'. An occupation in a country that has dozens of factions at odds with each other and all of them against the USA. Meanwhile, for all the flag waving, most of the people in the US have zero direct stake in this 'war'. There's no draft, no war tax, no rationing no nothing. People are more upset about the price of gas than the lives and limbs of 'volunteers'. Believe me. If there was a draft this BushWar for Oil would be shut down in a heartbeat. Then maybe we could get on with real security for 'our' country...a concept that the 'wingers just don't and can't get!
2007-05-21 09:19:38 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Their theory is that if the rich and powerful's kids were subject to being drafted, they wouldn't be so quick to send troops to war. I wonder if they could get the same result if we had a government made up of ordinary people, rather than the rich and powerful. . . maybe instead of taxing the rich, we just made a constitutional amendment that no one with a net worth over 1 million can run for any office. . . but back to the draft.
This theory breaks down when you realize that the rich and powerful will probably be as able to pull strings and get deferments or safe assignments as they were in the previous draft. It also overlooks the fact that the rich and powerful are likely to pull strings to get their children into West Point or one of the other service academies, even without a draft; I served with a number of West Point officers, some of whom came from wealthy and influential families.
They also overlook the flaw in the draft, which is obvious to anyone who is familiar with what the Army was like during a draft, and what it is like now, and glaringly obvious to anyone who can imagine what it would be like to apply the same logic to other professions. If a draft is good for the military, why not firefighters and police? Many hospitals are short on nurses, why not draft people to do that? Coal miners? Sewer repairmen? Is there anything immune to a draft?
Conscription into the military is involuntary servitude. It has no place in a free society.
2007-05-21 09:18:56 · answer #3 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Common sense. We already have occupying forces in 119 different places. We have a massive amount of soldiers occupying Iraq, and are sending more in large numbers. The recruitment offices have had to drastically lower their standards for new recruits. We do not have enough soldiers to allow proper training for the new ones. Many bases in Iraq, soldiers cannot carry their weapons loaded due to so many negligent discharges. Negligent, not accidental - the military classifies accidental discharge as a mechanical malfunction and a negligent discharge as a lack of training issue. If we send them over there without the proper training we are sending them to die. We also have the problems with Iran facing us, Darfur, the inability to even keep the Green Zone safe. We need more soldiers if we want to win the war on terror ad to be able to get out of Iraq sometime in the next decade.
I have kids that will be prime age for the draft if it is re-instated. I still think we need it if we are going to finish what we started.
2007-05-21 09:14:48 · answer #4 · answered by SlickWillie 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At the present time, our fighting forces are badly overextended. Lengthened service time and few new replacments, are burning our troops out, both mentally and physically. We need fresh forces over there, and if we can't get them through volentary enlistment, then a draft should be put into place.
This has nothing to do with politics, put with fighting and winning a war. We can't do it without the propper resources.
2007-05-21 09:48:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The point of the draft as suggested by Democrats is to make politicians think twice before approving military action, rather than rushing in without taking adequate time to really examine the facts. Under Democratic proposals, the draft would actually affect everyone, including the children of elected officials and their wealthy supporters.
In addition, this type of draft would create a more representative military. No longer would the armed forced be made up in large part of those who have no better options, but it would actually reflect America.
And why is it that Republicans, who are always talking about supporting the troops, and asking what people have done to support them, are so against actually serving?
Finally, the armed forces right now are stretched to the breaking point, and are unable to meet recruiting goals. So, if the military escapades of the current administration are to continue, then a draft may well be necessary.
2007-05-21 09:09:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Liberals use Vietnam as a template to their actions today. The thought goes that a major reason for the loss of support in the 60's and early 70's was the draft. If they can get the draft going again, this would help them gain support for ending this war and surrendering to our enemies.
2007-05-21 09:14:12 · answer #7 · answered by ROIHUNTER 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
their policy is to make things as much worse as possible up through the 2008 elections so that they will win the Presidency in 2008.
"Scare the voters" is a time honored tactic.
You don't actually think that Chelsea Clinton could be drafted under any set of rules that Hilary draws up, do you?
2007-05-21 09:09:31 · answer #8 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Maybe it is because conservatives are always talking about attacking Iran, and we have no military left to do it.
2007-05-21 09:17:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its a scare tactic to mobilie cowards into thinking that they might have to serve. The Dem Party is pretty pukey you know.
2007-05-21 09:12:17 · answer #10 · answered by Tom W 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋