English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers." Yahoo News

It would also get all those lazy people to work rather than wasting tax payers money.

2007-07-22 19:43:39 · 13 answers · asked by CJ 3 in Politics & Government Military

13 answers

no need. i joined out of love for this country, willing to give my life. not by force.

2007-07-22 21:46:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

If the government wanted a large military, it would not have downsized in the '80s after the Cold War. Oh sure They also don't talk about the cost of keeping a larger military in place. If you triple the size, you triple the cost. The military budget would jump from $400 billion to $1.2 trillion. Now $400 billion was a hard number for the politicans to swallow. They could never sell a $1.2 trillion a year military to the general public. They wouldn't even sell a $800 billion a year military since they can't even sell the $400 billion a year military they have now.

2007-07-22 20:02:24 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 3 0

If Murtha wants a draft, you can bet, he will get one, because his party will do what he says.
The next time a Liberal politician tells you that he opposes the culture of corruption and that, if elected, everything will be open and honest, do not believe it. When the Democrats ran their last campaign honesty was their best policy (to fool the voters) and now that they are in the majority they have done nothing to garner the trust of the people. Corruption, runs across both sides of the aisle and the libs have been corrupt for years. It does not seem to matter to the people who vote to put a person like Murtha in office time and again even though he was caught on video tape trying to take a bribe. Murtha has been known for years as a back room politician who wheels and deals and is big on earmarks. He loves to spend taxpayer money paying off people with big bucks and he is not bashful about it. His latest earmark was what caused the fray. He earmarked $23 million dollars for a program that the federal government has been trying to shut down because it is not cost effective. It is in Murtha’s district so he added the money back into the war supplemental.

This made one Republican, Mike Rogers, expressed his displeasure and Murtha sought him out and confronted him in a hostile manner. Murtha then told Rogers that he better not ever try to get anything in a bill because it would never make it. Murtha threatened to base decisions about future requests by Rogers on Rogers’ vote on Murtha’s money which is a violation of the House rules. Rogers asked that a vote be held to Reprimand Murtha for his violation. I knew this would not pass because the Democrats are in the Majority and there are not enough of them with spines who will stand up for what is right despite their campaign promises. Two Democrats voted against the measure (in Murtha’s disfavor) and that was the total number who had enough guts to do the right thing. The Libs held their noses and helped out Murtha.

2007-07-22 20:03:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Your question should be phrased 'Should slavery be restored?' That's one of the most obvious questions to answer. Absolutely not, under any circumstances.

The only moral response when the government institutes slavery is for every citizen to exercise their natural law right to self-defense by overthrowing that illegitimate government. Any government that enslaves its citizens ceases to have any claim of legitimacy and should be treated as a gang of criminals.

2007-07-22 20:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Hmm... What about women who might try to get pregnant in an effort to avoid the draft? I DONT condone that, but I'm sure there are some who would try it.

2007-07-24 17:29:04 · answer #5 · answered by Lizzy 2 · 0 0

In war you are forced to have the backs of the men you re fighting with. You want people looking after you, and will look after them. No matter what, democrat, republican, black ,white , volunteer or draftee. Once the bullets are flying it will come natural. To answer the question,yes. Just because you are drafted it doesent necessarily mean that you are going to a war zone, you could end up serving your country in another capacities.

2007-07-22 22:06:39 · answer #6 · answered by Vic Venom 1 · 0 4

No but they could send out letters to citizens urging them to join. Sort of like the draft but you can say no if you don't wish to enlist.

2007-07-22 19:53:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Think about it: if you're fighting in a war, would you rather your back be watched by someone who voluntarily joined, or who was forced to do it?

2007-07-22 19:51:41 · answer #8 · answered by Karen 5 · 3 0

No. A draft is tantamount to imprisonment or slavery.

2007-07-22 19:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 4 1

I believe very strongly in a social contract, as such I would support a kind of mandatory civil service, one in which everyone has to serve, but can choose a department or area that better fits them (including the military).

2007-07-22 19:49:59 · answer #10 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0 5

fedest.com, questions and answers