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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (285538)	12/28/2008 9:09:16 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

To: VINTER who wrote (285536) 12/28/2008 3:47:03 AM From: LindyBill of 285549 V: Didn't you get drafted yourself? LB: No, I enlisted. V: Me too, but wouldn't have if the draft was not in effect. LB. The day of mass Armies is over. Any war we get in now will have the major kenetic part over before anybody could be drafted and trained up to the point of fighting. V: Certainly true if the nuclear option is invoked. Probably not by us if we can help it. Remember "MAD" (Mutual Assured Destruction) Despite the fact that the day of large standing Armies is probably over the Army has struggled with its recruiting goals. LB: There is no push within the Army to go back to the draftee days. V: Correct. It is much easier for the Army to take and train people who want to be there then to have put up with all the "bitching" of recalcitrant draftees. But that is my point--or one of them. The draft acts as check on the Army (these kind of people are not going to help form any ind of police state and not shy about dialing up their congressman about actual and/or perceived abuses. Their also less inclined to carry out orders unthinkingly---hence probably less likely to have situation like Abdul Garib {spellling-- the US run prison in Iraq}) LB: I find the underlying purpose of those who propose it now is a "lets get them like they got me" We want to "shape up these whippersnappers!" V: Congressmen Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed this within the past year (and got absolutely no support) and I think, though I am not sure, that one of the stated purposes of the proposal (besides meeting recruiting shortfalls---the Army has had to waive a whole lot of requirements standards recently to meet its recruitment goals) was to have universal service for the benfit of the country and/or the military. Regardless of Rangel's purposes, that is my main argument--that in the long run it makes for a better more trustworthy military and the requirement of service (of some kind) acts as leavening yeast on our citizens who have the common bond of service, and as a check on our government to causally start a conflict. V: What was your job in the military?