That seems a little harsh. Typically a new Mom gets 6 weeks off with her newborn for this most at risk period. I would hate to see an increased risk to a baby for the sake of fairness. I think even if we were desperate enough to reinstitute the draft, we can keep a little compassion. I would probably err on the side of six months but maybe I am being chauvinistic.
I strongly agree with most of the rest of what you said except the slavery part. Military life can suck if you do not like it, but it is a far cry from slavery.
A conscript military is of no real use in a modern war, all current world powers either have professional armies or are moving towards professional armies, military service might potentially “teach a lesson” to some of the delinquents in our society, but they won’t do any good on the battlefield when they are either cowering in a pool of their own urine or dead from being incompetent and poorly trained.
That being said, it seems to be sort of an underlying assumption that had there been a draft in 2003, Iraq would not have been invaded. Seeing as how at that time, public opinion was generally supportive of the invasion, do you think a conscript millitary would have influenced the decision to invade Iraq?
And how does that, in any way, contradict what I stated? I suggest you read up on some definitions before critiquing my usage.
*slave /sleɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sleyv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, slaved, slav‧ing.
–noun 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
4. a slave ant.
5. Photography. a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged.
6. Machinery. a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Compare master (def. 19).
–verb (used without object) 7. to work like a slave; drudge.
8. to engage in the slave trade; procure, transport, or sell slaves.
–verb (used with object) 9. to connect (a machine) to a master as its slave.
10. Archaic. to enslave.
**slav‧er‧y /ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ **
–noun 1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4. severe toil; drudgery. *
I am against the draft. But where in that definition to you see a draft being the equivilent of slavery. From the same site as your link.
To use your argument that a draft = slavery; I could say that compulsory enrollment in school = slavery. I could say that compulsory jury duty = slavery. Of course I will not, because then I could be accused of being stupid and overstating my complaint.
No. While I have read persuasive arguments that the country would be better off if there were greater socioeconomic and educational diversity in the ranks of those who serve, I think a draft is:
-a horrible way to achieve this end
-stupid, given the military objection to it
-ridiculous, considering how easy it would be to dodge, between student deferrments, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,
I would gladly serve my country now, without a draft, if GLBT people were 1) allowed to serve openly and 2) allowed to marry legally. If I was single, I would be willing to go into the closet to serve if called, but, as I’m not single, I would have to think long and hard about it.
[quote]
3. If the draft provided an option to serve in a non-military role (airport or shipping security, teaching, medical), would you (or your child) choose that option instead of military service? Why or why not.*
I wouldn’t, because I would rather put my counseling skills to use in a military setting.
Whoops, hit reply too soon. I meant to add psychiatric labels and physical conditions as another means of dodging the draft. I’m sure a lot of people would rather get a prescription for Prozac from a sympathetic doctor than face dying or losing a limb in combat.
I’m sorry, I missed your point amongst your smug response. So far as I can tell, you’ve correctly asserted that my usage of the word does in fact fit the definition. But it seems you take issue with my usage of the word at all. Why?
Could it be because it’s a powerful word? The two other examples you cite are not analogous to what I intended to convey with implementation of said word, due to the extremely unlikely risk of death in both of your scenarios, in addition to your first example pertaining strictly to minors (which have limited rights to begin with).
But we’re arguing a technicality anyway, the exact word used matters little, at least in the greater context, from my perspective.
You still have not explained how the draft equals slavery. Nor does slavery imply a high likelihood of death. I think your choice of word and dictionary quoting defense of the word are not logical. But I suppose you are correct that we a quibbling over a technicality.
I used the term “enslaving,” which Dictionary.com defines as* “To make into or as if into a slave.”*
Subsequently, Dictionary.com defines “slave” as " a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug. "
Dictionary.com also defines draft as "a selection or drawing of persons, by lot or otherwise, from the general body of the people for military service; levy; conscription."
Wikipedia writes *"Conscription is a general term for *involuntary labor ** demanded by some established authority, but it is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require (very often, male only) citizens to serve in their armed forces"
Following the above, I fail to see how it can’t be interpreted that the draft equates to slavery. A draftee is, by definition, someone who’s serving involuntary under the government’s domination.
You’re implying that Quayle got out of the war because of family connections, so why is Clinton in there? He wasn’t the child of anybody rich or important.
I could see an argument that more untrained and unwilling soldiers would lead to a greater number of deaths.
I want to laugh at the notion that a draft would prevent unjust wars. Unfortunately, I can’t. A draft certainly wouldn’t suddenly change Americans into a bunch of pacifists. You’re giving too much credit to the people at large and not enough to their dishonest leaders. No matter what, whenever a war started, protestors would be shouted down with a chorus of “you’re unamerican; support the troops; this isn’t the time to complain.” No matter what happens, most people will not be in the line of fire, and neither will their kids. It took the American people three years come to the conclusion that Iraq was a mistake. How much sooner do people think they would have figured it out if there was a draft?
If you equate all involuntary labor to slavery, then prison terms would involve much slavery. Your argument and reasoning really appear to be devaluing the word slavery.
Prisoners work for a couple of pennies an hour, as I understand it, and they’re required to do so by the state. They’re certainly forced to work. I don’t think this argument helps you.
We are serious but other than our little adventure in Iraq, we don’t need a draft. However, now that we are in Iraq there are two ways out, back the way we came, or through the mud and we’re going to need more men if we are going to go through the mud.
You need to score a 30 out of 100 to qualify for military service, right now we are enlisting folks who don’t meet this criteria (like the guy that raped that 14 year old girls then killed and burned her family). The military offers some pretty huge benefits (like the Mongomery G.I. Bill), better pay than most high school graduates can make right out of high school (or if you are a college graduate, officers get paid better than what most college grads get paid), veterans preferences, etc. These days we are even offering signing bonuses. But we still can’t get people to even walk into a recruiter’s office to talk about a military career (even a short one). We have resorted to stop-loss, near mercenary amounts of signing (or re-upping) bonuses and recruiting borderline candidates. How the heck are we going to get the men we need to get through the mud if we decide that backing out is unacceptable.
You make a lot of assumptions that are incorrect or at least overstated. Stop-loss only keeps people in units that are under deployment orders. It is no keeping everyone in indefinately. We had a number of people who were due to get out during our deployment. As soon as we got back they got out. Stop-loss is nothing new, it was not invented for this conflict. I have tons of stories about Desert Storm and stop-loss.
As for raising and lowering the standards for enlistment, that has been going on for as long as I can recall. The standards changed on a prety much a monthly basis. When I joined in 89 they were not taking anyone with a GED and I could not get a bonus. There were people in basic training with me that didn’t even have a high school diploma. There were people in AIT that got thousands of dollars in bonus money that I didn’t get. They signed up in a different month than me. They have been doing this ever since they went to an all volunteer force.
I am not saying that recruiting isn’t a hell of a lot more difficult now but to say that they can’t get people to walk into a recruiting office is wrong. Did you know that the active military met all their recruiting and retention goals forFY2006?
They are having a bit more trouble in the reserves and guard but they have been coming close to their goals.
No I don’t think there should be a draft and there won’t be one. It is a stunt by Rangel. The country doesn’t want it, the political leadership doesn’t want it and the military doesn’t want it.
You are missing the entire point. He is against the war, always has been. It is a political stunt just like Michael Moore ambushing Congressman about putting their (adult ) children into the military. And Charles Rangel doesn’t have to join the military. From his website:
A bit too old to do much good in this conflict and I think he has paid his dues.
I’m curious about the people who are sure that a draft would give us the dregs of society, essentially marching morons to be used as cannon fodder. With a larger pool to choose from, it is easier to weed out the imbeciles, incompetents and insane. Sure, you can take everyone from the captain of the football team to the captain of the AV club and place them alongside the burnouts and dropouts in an infantry unit. But wouldn’t it make more sense to filter out the people with a poor track record already (poor grades, run-ins with the law, physique of Pee-wee Herman) and leave the rest in? Of the “rejects”, if they insist on military service, then they would be placed according to their abilities similar to how it is currently done. Anyone else would be stamped the old 4F and be sent home. I don’t see Private Pyle being the norm.
With a volunteer military, you basically take what walks in the door. Today you get Mr. Gung-ho Grunt whose hobbies including watching Saving Private Ryan and target shooting. Tomorrow you’ll get Smedley Herzog, Jr. who only wants to make money for college. The next you get Jeff Spicoli who has just been kicked out of his parents’ basement and thinks that the cops are on to him for his personal farm.
I don’t like the draft but I believe that if it could be administered fairly and properly, with no favoritism that we could actually make it a decent distribution of talents and abilities. Of course, the probability of that happening is about as likely as me winning the Nobel Prize for Physics, sleeping with Jessica Alba, and Bill Gates adopting me as his son and sole heir.
Yes but everyone who walks through the door wants to be there. You still have a decent percentage of people who decide too late that the military isn’t for them and either actively or passively try to get out. These people are a drain on the unit, are hard to lead and aren’t very productive. Add a bunch of draftees and multiply that by a 1000.
There was a show on Discovery or History a while ago about the history of the NCO. At one part they were interviewing a modern Marine Drill Instructor (pre-Iraqi Freedom). He talked about how they used positive and negative reenforcement, menotring and other teaching techniques to train new Marines. Then they switched to R. Lee Ermy who said the main technique they used when he was a DI was to beat the shit out of the recruits. Yes physically beat them. He explained that class sizes where bigger, class length was shorter and most didn’t want to be there. Since he was trying to save their lives when they were sent to Viet Nam, they didn’t have time to use Headology on them. No way this could be done in the military now. It wouldn’t work.
It’s not a matter of getting the dregs of society. The current war is being fought predominantly by the middle class, just like it’s always been. A draft would not change that. It would just be a lot harder to train and fight with a bunch of people who don’t want to be in the military.
But, if it did, I’d intensify my yoga practice, in an attempt to be able to kiss my hemorrhoid for disqualifying me (hemorrhoids with a history of bleeding, such as I have, are a disqualification).
Eire774, the problem with your approach is that it gives anyone who doesn’t want to go an “out”. You don’t want to serve? Then just fuck off in Basic Training, and they’ll give up and send you back home. So…why would any draftee do anything other than fuck off all day every day during Basic Training?
If you weed out the gays, the stoners, the dumbasses, the medical cases, then you’ve got a huge incentive for unwilling draftees to prove they’re gay, a stoner, a dumbass, or a medical case.
In today’s military you get kicked out if you fail a drug test. That would have to be changed in a conscipt army, rather than discharge you’d have to get some kind of punishment, otherwise all you’d need for a ticket home is to smoke a joint. You can get kicked out if you fail your physical fitness test. That would have to be changed, otherwise all you’d need to do is slack off during the test and you get a ticket home. Or tell your CO you’re a big fag. Or whatever.
In other words, a draft that disqualified people like you suggest is essentially equivalent to today’s volunteer military, the only difference is that it would be an opt-out plan instead of an opt-in plan. But anyone with an ounce of motivation could get out of military service with a minimal amount of effort. And so, why bother?