Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (12653)	12/4/2001 5:19:39 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Arafat..."Missiles have been fired at his West Bank headquarters where the Palestinian leader is trapped" Message 16741938

To: unclewest who wrote (12653)	12/4/2001 10:09:04 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

the draft is certainly loaded with political issues...i agree there. but i do not recall anyone ever suggesting it is illegal. If we wish to alter the discussion and remove the arbitrary issues surrounding the draft, I would suggest that mandatory conscription be implemented. Mandatory service for all 18 year olds, male and female, of between 1 1/2 and 3 years, and not limited to strictly military service, but also infrastructure support (building roads, fighting forest fires, or other park service projects), and/or peace corp activities, and health care services (waiverable pending completion of a college or technical training.) Effectively, the time period would be used to insure that all adults receive some technical training which would be employed for the benefit of the whole country. They would be paid a stipend, and be housed in government facilities (which they would build themselves), and in exchange they would receive college tuition assistance or a financial cash out upon successful completion of service. The result would insure that no adult leaves high school without a marketable skill, and/or the job skills and discipline necessary to succeed in the world. And the college tuition assistance would insure that all participants could obtain a college degree, which would have the additional benefit of increasing their earning power in the job market. Those who opt for the military would receive greater benefits and shorter terms of service, as an encouragement to serve in those dangerous positions. I think of it as an investment in the people of this nation, and providing ALL people an equal starting place, no matter what their social status, rich or poor. Controversial? Yes. Logical? Yes. Desirable? I think so. But it will never happen.. Hawk

To: unclewest who wrote (12653)	12/4/2001 1:44:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

if we have to rapidly expand our forces, i doubt pay will do it. we have around 2+ million under arms right now...north korea alone has seven million. i do not believe we can get ourselves up to strength to tackle that monster without a draft. cia.gov "After decades of mismanagement, the North relies heavily on international food aid to feed its population, while continuing to expend resources to maintain an army of about 1 million." Korea, North Military Military branches: Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 5,943,735 (2001 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 3,574,050 (2001 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 179,136 (2001 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (FY98 est.) ____________________________________________ cia.gov Korea, South Military Military branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard) Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 14,148,552 (2001 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 8,979,778 (2001 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 394,397 (2001 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12 billion (2000) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY98/99) _____________________________ North Korea doesn't even have 7 million military age men let alone an army of 7 million. Also man for man, US, or even South Korean soldiers should be able to outfight the north. If they where to have success against South Korea it would have to be quick. If they did not defeat the South by the time we would be able to bring draftees in to combat they would have already lost, as South Korea mobilizes reserves and American reinforcements arrive. A better case for larger American armed forces, is what happens if the North invades the south while the US is busy elsewhere or the other way around, while we are busy with North Korea, some other major event requiring US intervention comes up. but you will find it difficult at best and more likely impossible to field a large effective American army based on a pay scale motivator. Americans will not die for a buck...but they will willingly go into battle and die for love. I think the today's volunteer forces would die for the same reasons that those who were forced to serve would die for. They might enlist and train for the dollars and benefits, but many of them also join because of a sense of patriotism. If they are drafted they don't join for love but because they are forced to become soldiers. I don't see why volunteers would be less willing to risk their lives then draftees. If we suddenly did need a massive increase in our armed forces then a draft would be useful, but there would be a big delay and a large expense involved in equipping and training all of those people to current US Army standards. I suppose if it's really hitting the fan that extra solider that are not as well trained and equipped might still be useful but a lot more of them will die. Tim

To: unclewest who wrote (12653)	12/4/2001 2:31:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<the draft is certainly loaded with political issues...i agree there. but i do not recall anyone ever suggesting it is illegal. btw the basic mechanisms to reinstate the draft are in place...> Well, there goes the much vaunted freedom! I say it is no better than slavery, which was of course legal, but still immoral and unethical. <i believe the draft army more closely resembled our culture, and it was much cheaper. > That's right! Actually, rather than just press-gang males into the cannon-fodder ranks to serve the interests of those who decide where the military action is required to 'defend our interests and our beloved freedom', why not reintroduce slavery? Then those conscripted could be paid even less. What? You wouldn't conscript females? Good grief, what about all that feminist stuff and non-sexist stuff we have heard so much about for decades. Yep, those Afghan Taleban are real bad guys for forcing their ways on other people but conscription to attack other people is all hunky-dory; in defence of liberty of course. There's no moral high ground in the fight with the Taleban. It's basically a male dominance hierarchy chimp fight for territory, same as for millions of years - GeorgeW even looks like a chimp. If we accept that, at least we won't deceive ourselves about what's going on. <we all hear freedom is not free. as a combat veteran, i can tell you the real price of freedom cannot be measured in dollars. the dollars will buy the guns and ammo...but you will find it difficult at best and more likely impossible to field a large effective American army based on a pay scale motivator. Americans will not die for a buck...but they will willingly go into battle and die for love.> So, how come they need to be conscripted? They'll volunteer out of love if the cause is right. Freedom will be free for those who don't have males to contribute and who get a free ride on defence by underpaying for that defence. Why not try paying instead of conscription? I think soldiers should be paid seriously large amounts of money and held in high esteem. I find it extremely offensive that people can have their lives confiscated in the interests of tightwads who are happy to have others die for their interests. Sure, to pay enough to attract people would be expensive. So what? Even if it took the total value of the community, with promissory notes on the future too, it would be worth it if freedom is as great as the sloganeers and cliche artists purport. You couldn't pay me enough to commit military crimes and nor could you force me to commit military crimes in defence of some 'interests' which is the common military action and explanation these days. If you try conscripting me for something I don't support, you declare war on me and you will lose. Will is free, meaning 'free will', not that somebody else can confiscate it. You cannot conscript love. If I do agree that something needs defending, then I would expect those who benefit from the defence to get their money out. If they are not prepared to do that, then why on earth should somebody defend them. Communism is nearly finished! Please don't recommend 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', in military service or anything else. Compulsory, conscripted, press-ganged military service "for the good of the proletariat and to look after Exxon's oil supplies" is not part of freedom. If somebody wants military service, let them pay the market rate for it. The price of freedom can be measured in dollars. Mqurice