Isn't this true support? The soldiers need some R&R and this would greatly help them.
2007-10-07 03:31:13 · 24 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
People who don't want to be there would be a problem with morale. The volunteer military is working just fine. We just need to get a competent Commander in Chief.............
2007-10-07 03:47:39 · answer #1 · answered by tallerfella 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I am a disabled vet and I do support the troops by working to put pressure on congress to end this war. We are in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
The soldiers don't need R&R - they need to come home. Send in some NGO's like Voices in the Wilderness, Food Not Bombs, Common Ground, Dr.'s Without Borders, ect. to help clean up the mess we made. (you get a group like Vets for Peace over there to do a 60 day mediation for their gov and most all the problems they are having would be worked out!) There is nothing more efficient than a group of Peace activists working for Peace! (Instead of using the help these orgs have offered - for free!!! - our gov has fined them for trying to help! But then they don't get the moneymaking opportunity they do from hiring the likes of Halbatron)
I do support the idea of 2year manditory service from everyone to this country we live in. It's like a shared apt - you live there you help keep it livable. However, there has to be a choise of millitary or civilian coorps. For example, a young person could choose to serve as a medic in the Army or go to Chicago to help staff a neighborhood free clinic. That way all would serve, not just the poor, and Consience Objectors would have no reason to flee to Canada...
I do have a problem with the fact that you are (at 17) old enough to die for your country but you can't order a beer. I strongly belive the age of enlistment (volluntary or draft) should be 21.
2007-10-07 11:26:09 · answer #2 · answered by fotofarie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the draft is a fairer & more sensible system. There would still be volunteers as well, but there would be representation from all income & educational levels & social status. The war would probably end sooner as well.
There have been drafts in other wars & those soldiers were just as patriotic anf fought just as hard and honorably as the volunteers, so the argument against that is moot. Many of the volunteers are doing just for the money, just as the mercenaries are.
2007-10-07 10:59:31 · answer #3 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The purpose of a draft is to quickly raise an infantry, a front line fighting force (which is why women don't have to sign up for selective service). The military we have now are all volunteer, professional and trained better then any other military in the world. Even though in the past draftees served with honor we don't need some one that is only there because their number was drawn. If you want to support the troops visit your local V.A. hospital of VFW hall and ask what you can do.
2007-10-07 10:39:30 · answer #4 · answered by badbender001 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I think the soldiers who enlisted during war time understood to some degree what they were getting into. I know the deployments have been extended to 15 months, and most of them were unaware that would happen. But they understood that they were joining the military, so some part of them must have felt they could do it. Making any old Joe off the street go to war these days would be very dangerous with all these lame college boys you hear saying "Oh man, if that was me in Iraq I'd kill all them muther effers!!"
There are too many lazy, out of shape, 24 hours a day Halo playing guys out there that would never make it and probably only become a hindrance to our military.
2007-10-07 10:41:50 · answer #5 · answered by ddawwnnwwrri 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A draft wouldn't help our volunteer military. It would be a huge drag on the military since they would have to serve with people that don't want to be there. The Liberal Democrats have done their best to reinstate the draft. They have attacked Blackwater now....hoping to get rid of the mercenaries and that would create more need for the military. Then they can point to Bush started the draft. There won't be a word about it if Hillary gets in.
2007-10-07 10:49:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The draft isn't needed at this time.
What is needed is a lower OPTEMPO, and a clear focus to U.S. Foreign policy. here's an idea, next time we go after the real criminals who attacked us on 9/11, let's not allow ourselves to be distracted by a two-bit hustler of a dictator as though we were some sugar-high ADHD third grader.
We need to step up diplomacy between the three de facto states within Iraq and eliminate the need for our present occupation, then focus (once again) on eliminating Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden. Let's not create more "merry little wars" until we eliminate the criminals who have attacked us and so far gotten away with it while we're chasing windmills in Mesopotamia.
2007-10-07 10:39:30 · answer #7 · answered by Greenman 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
By a draft? No. There are many ways to support them, but there is a difference of opinion as to which way is best. Some say that more and more money needs to be spent, while others say that The U. S. needs to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I say they should be withdrawn and allowed to return home to their families.
2007-10-07 15:47:21 · answer #8 · answered by Rebecca 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've been there, believe me, I would much rather spend another 6 months over there than to send someone who didn't sign up for it... that's just cruel and unusual punishment...
I am against the draft and I always will be as long as we are fighting someone else's war. If the war was here is the states, I know that everyone in America would be standing in line to get some pay backs... we don't need the draft.
The soldiers and sailors over there are hating every moment, but they'd rather do it than to send someone who hasn't had the training or the mind-set for the job... it just makes sense.
2007-10-07 10:43:21 · answer #9 · answered by eliminator_3 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nah we need college kids that think they know everything to ridicule us. Anyway I don't believe in the draft because those that wouldn't give their lives for another(notice I didn't say country) shouldn't even be considered a soldier whatever. When your in combat overall the cause is of you fighting for your country but at that moment of time your fighting to keep everyone alive. But the draft is taking away one's freedom, the freedom to volunteer.
2007-10-07 10:51:33 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The draft in no way supports the individual soldiers. It would only support the overall military picture by providing more "canon fodder".
Supporting the individual troops involves keeping them as safe as possible while allowing them to do the job assigned.
Another way to support the troops is to elect a president who will not send them into harm's way on false pretenses!
Look into Ron Paul for president.
2007-10-07 10:39:24 · answer #11 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋