The W
Views: 98614225
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.9.07 0420
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Return of the draft?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1214 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 686/1857
EXP: 5331140
For next: 101104

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 466 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 11.11.03 0838.08
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0843.03
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I would hope that this is one time that if a tax increase were necessary, no one would object.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Never, not with so much waste in each department and so much asinine social spending.


Amen, Grimis. The government spends so much money on such stupid things that it would be insane to even consider raising taxes right now. I can see the logic (kinda) in stopping a hefty tax cut, but raising taxes with idiotic spending would pretty much guarantee that whichever party proposes it wouldn't see the White House for decades.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 138/2697
EXP: 8838123
For next: 150696

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#22 Posted on 11.11.03 0839.11
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0843.08
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Obviously none of you posters have ever served, or if you have served, you fail to remember two small words that prevent a mass exodus of troops. STOP LOSS. The government can, and will issue a stop loss order when it is needed, ensuring nobody can get out, or retire when thier contract is up, if there is a war, or other military requirements that would make it detrimental to the military for them to leave the service. Happened in the first Gulf War, and I am sure some people have had it happen to them this time around. If it gets to be a REAL issue, then the order comes out, and the troops stay.


Correct with actives but does that apply to the National Guard? Even if they prevent everyone form leaving when their enlistment is up, it doesn't appear we have enough personnel to realistically satisfy our commitments. One more theater of engagement and we are screwed.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1512/2042
EXP: 6275138
For next: 117661

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2982 days
Last activity: 196 days
#23 Posted on 11.11.03 0855.09
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0859.03
Then perhaps we shouldn't engage anywhere else right now?
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2500/5402
EXP: 27002382
For next: 129622

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#24 Posted on 11.11.03 1157.43
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1159.04
Dear South Korea:

You remember those couple hundred thousand people in Seoul who marched wanting our troops to leave your country? Well, let them know they have their wish. We could use those 50,000 troops elsewhere. Have a pleasant day.

Signed,
The United States Military.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 713/1084
EXP: 2426206
For next: 35658

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#25 Posted on 11.11.03 1219.34
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1223.00
We pulled troops out of South Korea awhile ago.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2501/5402
EXP: 27002382
For next: 129622

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 11.11.03 1224.24
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1224.41
We didn't pull out of South Korea, we simply agreed to remove our troops from the DMZ and pull them further south (usatoday.com)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 714/1084
EXP: 2426206
For next: 35658

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#27 Posted on 11.11.03 1227.32
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1229.01
While that article doesn't mention it specifically, I thought they also reduced the number of troops in South Korea, probably because of the war in Iraq. I know they didn't pull out completely, though.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 142/2697
EXP: 8838123
For next: 150696

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#28 Posted on 11.11.03 1440.21
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1441.25


The major thrust was redeploying south of the DMZ in order to adopt a new strategy and be better able to respond. I also believe there was some reduction in force. We shouldn't abandon South Korea. Overall it has been a decent ally and one of the few in that part of the world worth anything.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 3045/7534
EXP: 43489535
For next: 812227

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 428 days
Last activity: 428 days
#29 Posted on 11.11.03 1446.12
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1450.09
    Originally posted by spf2119
    Dear South Korea:

    You remember those couple hundred thousand people in Seoul who marched wanting our troops to leave your country? Well, let them know they have their wish. We could use those 50,000 troops elsewhere. Have a pleasant day.

    Signed,
    The United States Military.







I'd have no problem pulling our troops out of there and Europe today. Those protesters in Seoul would learn quickly that semi-free speech doesn't crack the top 4 billion list of allowed items by the North Korean regime.
Also, congratulations SPF on becoming only the 2nd person to reach the prestigious Loser category here.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 367/443
EXP: 634150
For next: 26019

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2815 days
#30 Posted on 11.11.03 2231.22
Reposted on: 11.11.10 2231.22
Staggerlee sez:

    Obviously none of you posters have ever served, or if you have served, you fail to remember two small words that prevent a mass exodus of troops. STOP LOSS.


You're right, I've never served (or does two years in the cadets count when I was a teen? ). And you're also right about stop loss. But that is a short-term solution.

Extending soldiers' service by six months in today's situation is probably understandable to those in uniform. But how about a year? Two years? What would that do to troop morale? What would that do to new recruitment rates, if the perception is that once you've signed up, you can't leave?


Lexus
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 443/1818
EXP: 5272144
For next: 160100

Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 6 min.
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 12.11.03 0020.03
Reposted on: 12.11.10 0021.07
Not for nothing, but what would the right cause constitute these days? I mean, if someone invaded the U.S. on a full scale, you will see lots of weird people come out of the woodwork to fight (militias, etc.) Drafting for something like that wouldn't be necessary.

Not only that, but would eligibility standards for the U.S. Military change? Currently, I am 300 lbs., and am on probation for posession of marijuana (discredited by conservatives in 3, 2, 1). As such, I am not getting into the military. Would the reinstatement of a draft mean I'd be eligible, barring health reasons? (Note: My bodyfat percentage denotes I am not obese.)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 631/6264
EXP: 32703633
For next: 582854

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 37 min.
#32 Posted on 13.11.03 1048.56
Reposted on: 13.11.10 1050.03
I was always under the impression that people who were called to active duty, served just as if they were active, and that the rules of Stop Loss would apply to them as well, but I may be mistaken.

As far as the Morale issue, the Army families have been crying since about the 90 day mark that they wanted thier family members home. Morale is low, and there isnt a lot that can be done about that. Some Navy ships were on station 9-10 months, which is 3-4 months longer than a routine deployment. The thing is, now that we as a nation, got ourselves into this, we need to get things set up for a speedy exodus, with as few service members as needed left behind.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 524/3356
EXP: 13185336
For next: 335207

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on 13.11.03 1240.56
Reposted on: 13.11.10 1242.00
    Originally posted by Lexus

    Not only that, but would eligibility standards for the U.S. Military change? Currently, I am 300 lbs., and am on probation for posession of marijuana (discredited by conservatives in 3, 2, 1). As such, I am not getting into the military. Would the reinstatement of a draft mean I'd be eligible, barring health reasons? (Note: My bodyfat percentage denotes I am not obese.)


Obviously, the standard would change if a draft were re-instituted. I had friends get drafted who had been busted for possession. The "Go to the Army or go to jail" thing was real during the Nam. Cory Heckler, a hell-raiser in our little country town (which meant he smoked pot, drank wine and had a car with a cherry bomb muffler), was drafted and he went in, despite having one leg that was slightly longer than another. (Cory always looked like he was drunk, cause of the way he walked. It wasn't long enough to goof him up much, he just had kind of a loping gate. He stopped wearing the special shoes in high school). And he did his two years in the Navy on the Midway and came home and, last I heard, was more or less a solid citizen.

Point being, I was sure glad when they stopped the draft before I turned 18! Of course, I got a kid who is 14.

Come ON - College deferments!
Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 1431/3504
EXP: 14104791
For next: 304141

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 254 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#34 Posted on 16.11.03 1601.45
Reposted on: 16.11.10 1602.10
Ah, thank God I live in Canada, where the Liberals are so damned scared of losing power they never even utter anything that RHYMES with draft (which makes ordering beer interesting to say the least...)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 304/330
EXP: 391278
For next: 13497

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3781 days
Last activity: 2847 days
#35 Posted on 16.11.03 1654.42
Reposted on: 16.11.10 1654.44
I mean, gosh, this is really just ridiculous. We aren't even close to the point where a draft would be necessary because we're spread too thin. Three cheers for fearmongering!

P.S. We should pull out of Europe and South Korea.

P.P.S We still have troops in Kosovo. Why?
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 527/3356
EXP: 13185336
For next: 335207

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#36 Posted on 16.11.03 2010.39
Reposted on: 16.11.10 2010.44
    Originally posted by Michrome
    I mean, gosh, this is really just ridiculous. We aren't even close to the point where a draft would be necessary because we're spread too thin. Three cheers for fearmongering!

    P.S. We should pull out of Europe and South Korea.

    P.P.S We still have troops in Kosovo. Why?


Europe, to some extent, I can understand. The red menace is dead (Thanks, President Reagan!). South Korea's a different story. It's relatively peaceful there, it's a good place to train. (I did a year there and the Eagle training exercises were tops) and the red menace is close and powerful. We need to stop communism. That's a good place. It's not costing us too much, I don't think. Assuming we were going to have the troops in uniform anyway.

Kosovo is still pretty hot, feelings-wise and we got in there for whatever reason (Genocide and racial cleansing is what was used by President Clinton, and it seems good enough as a reason to help for me). The UN is doing peacekeeping and we're part of that. That's basically what Korea's about too.

Counties often have a foriegn base or two. The Germans have a cooperative base in Goose Bay, Labrador in Canada, for example. I believe the Dutch and French train there as well. The Russians have bases in South America somewhere. To some extent, it's what you join the military for - I would have been bummed not to spend a year or more overseas (But I didn't want a tour in Germany, cause that was three years. I wanted Korea or Panama - both one year tours. Jarheads want Okinowa or Gitmo, while Air Forcies want Osan or Alaska or even Diego Garcia.

And that's what goes with being a world power.

But I hope with the new plan to pull out of Iraq that the need for a draft never comes. Like I said, I got a 14 year old
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 148/2697
EXP: 8838123
For next: 150696

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#37 Posted on 16.11.03 2247.38
Reposted on: 16.11.10 2248.46
    Originally posted by Michrome
    I mean, gosh, this is really just ridiculous. We aren't even close to the point where a draft would be necessary because we're spread too thin. Three cheers for fearmongering!

    P.S. We should pull out of Europe and South Korea.

    P.P.S We still have troops in Kosovo. Why?


Isolationism worked so well after WWI and scaling back did wonders after WWII. On my part it is not fear mongering, just reality. The world was, is, and will be a dangerous place. Should our allies be more responsible for their own defense.. Most of us would say yes. However, we cannot disengage. In the long run it will cost us more.

I am as glad as anyone that the USSR fell, but in reality the geopolitical world was more stable when it existed.

As far as committing a couple of years to serve your country, it should be mandatory. Everyone fresh out of high school should have to commit some time to the good old U.S. Doesn't have to be in the armed forces but somewhere. Doesn't have to be full time but service of some sort.
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 670/2081
EXP: 6345760
For next: 47039

Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#38 Posted on 17.11.03 0145.13
Reposted on: 17.11.10 0155.42
    Originally posted by DrDirt


    I am as glad as anyone that the USSR fell, but in reality the geopolitical world was more stable when it existed.



This is innately true. When there's a couple big dogs in the yard, they just fight each other. When there's only one, you have a problem. Eventually, you get extremists who want to make a name for themselves in whatever twisted reality they operate in, and right now the U.S. is the only target visible enough to get the attention of the world.

Competition is good, and I'm a firm believer that the Cold War, despite its negative impact on international relations, didn't really hurt anybody. It was an arms race, for sure, but despite a couple close calls no one fired on anyone else in a major nuclear onslaught. It was a pissing contest.

Obviously the army is over-extended, and I think this is a clear time to withdraw certain engagements.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 636/6264
EXP: 32703633
For next: 582854

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 37 min.
#39 Posted on 17.11.03 0733.59
Reposted on: 17.11.10 0734.14
The reasons we keep our troops in Europe is, it is a lot cheaper in the long run, than having them all stateside and deploying them when/if needed.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 374/443
EXP: 634150
For next: 26019

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2815 days
#40 Posted on 17.11.03 0748.40
Reposted on: 17.11.10 0749.01
    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
    Competition is good, and I'm a firm believer that the Cold War, despite its negative impact on international relations, didn't really hurt anybody. It was an arms race, for sure, but despite a couple close calls no one fired on anyone else in a major nuclear onslaught. It was a pissing contest.


Um, I'm pretty sure all those dead people in Southeast Asia, Africa, Central and South America would dispute that if they could. But they can't, because they got killed as pawns in the pissing contest.

Or did you think people living in the Third World were happy with their military dictatorships and civil wars and invasions and death squads?


Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Chretien steps down December 12
Next thread: Centralized Governments want UN Control of the Internet
Previous thread: Pick Your Prime Minister
(1214 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Return of the draft?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.25 seconds.