Bring back the draft

In My Humble Opinion
61

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Come on, we had draft boards for how many years? During that time you don’t think there were a few people who tried to scam the system. However, if someone was not fit for military service, put them into a national service program to fulfill their national obligation. They could teach, work in hospitals, maybe start some New Deal type programs where we fix up the f’d up highway system. I’m not saying give them a free ticket home. And if they are so screwed up that they can’t handle any other obligation, then let them go.

I know that Israel used to have a mandatory conscription with some variances made for ultra-Orthodox Jews. It even included women. I’m not sure if it is still in effect but I thought that it had worked out pretty good for them. Maybe one of our Israeli Dopers can provide some insight.

Your statement “Or tell your CO you’re a big fag.” Reminded me of when I was in basic training. One guy in my platoon was tired of pushups, running, inspections and the general bullshit of the Army. He told me he was going to go tell the CO that he was gay and then take the dishonorable discharge. He just didn’t give a shit anymore.

I watched him walk into our unit CO’s office. The door was shut and about two minutes later, the guy walked out looking really depressed.

I asked him what happened.

“I told the CO that I was gay and wanted to get out of the Army.”

“What did he say,” I asked.
“He stood up, pulled out his dick and told me that if I sucked him off and swallowed that he’d sign the papers. I looked at his dick, looked at him and then just walked out.”

My buddies and I just busted up. The guy kept repeating, “I can’t believe he wanted a blowjob just to prove I was gay. Why wouldn’t he just believe me!”

62

[QUOTE=erie774]
…“What did he say,” I asked.
“He stood up, pulled out his dick and told me that if I sucked him off and swallowed that he’d sign the papers. I looked at his dick, looked at him and then just walked out.”

My buddies and I just busted up. The guy kept repeating, “I can’t believe he wanted a blowjob just to prove I was gay. Why wouldn’t he just believe me!”
[/QUOTE]

What would the CO have done if he said okay and tried to go down on him? :dubious: Sodomy is still a crime under the UCMJ. Still if the draft was reinstated the Army would have to allow gays to serve. Otherwise men would claim to be gay or bisexual and how could the Army disprove that? Require groups of men trying to get declared unfit have group sex with the local draft board as witnesses :rolleyes: . As much fun as that sounds it would never fly with the Right.

63

[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
How in the hell does it devalue a word’s meaning when its being used properly?
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, in your case, you aren’t using it properly, as the Supreme Court has already decided.

Just because you want it to apply to the draft, that doesn’t mean it does.

The draft simply is not slavery–no matter how many times you say it is or wish it was.

64

[QUOTE=Loach]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I read an early WW2 Marine’s account of his boot training I could hardly believe – and NOT because of the brutality, although it was used pretty freely as a training tool. What floored me was the DI’s talking to the recruits as if they were rational human beings. They could look the DI in the eye, use 1st person, all kinds of stuff that would be unthinkably lax today.

The first day (!!) one DI said to his recruits, “I won’t ask you to do anything I wouldn’t do first.” Don’t get me wrong – next thing he’d wiped up the floor with some young tough and chewed a new asshole for some cat who’d called him Sarge after being expressly told that was forbidden. But there wasn’t that shock indoctrination that’s since been adopted. It was almost as if – hell, I dunno –as if they believed they really were fighting to save civilization, instead of just training instruments of national policy.

In any case, a Marine is not likely to be a draftee or vice versa. If there were a draft, though, training and doctrine in the other services would have to change, and probably to the detriment of hardcore soldier values such as we see enshrined in a volunteer force. The problem with citizen-soldiers is that they insist on being treated like citizens. We got around this in WW2, but could we today?

65

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
Unfortunately, in your case, you aren’t using it properly, as the Supreme Court has already decided.

Just because you want it to apply to the draft, that doesn’t mean it does.
[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court rules on the law of the land, not the meaning of words. The Court has ruled that capital punishment isn’t cruel and unusual; I think it’s not only cruel and unusual, but that it’s murder. The Court has ruled that forced conscription isn’t slavery; Red Barchetta disagrees. If you want to argue that draftees aren’t slaves, SCOTUS won’t help unless you’re arguing about whether the draft is or isn’t Constitutional. And of course, slavery was once Constitutional, too.

66

Perhaps not slavery… But it is involuntary, and it is servitude. Which, if I recall my social studies classes, is also prohibited under the 14th Ammendment.

In my view, any war fought to defend freedom, which uses conscription, is a war which is already lost. If we did have a draft, I would do whatever I could to avoid going. I cannot say for certain, but I hope that I would also be willing to put myself in harm’s way to do what I can to help others justly dodge the draft.

67

[QUOTE=Marley23]
The Supreme Court rules on the law of the land, not the meaning of words. The Court has ruled that capital punishment isn’t cruel and unusual; I think it’s not only cruel and unusual, but that it’s murder. The Court has ruled that forced conscription isn’t slavery; Red Barchetta disagrees. If you want to argue that draftees aren’t slaves, SCOTUS won’t help unless you’re arguing about whether the draft is or isn’t Constitutional. And of course, slavery was once Constitutional, too.
[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. In the cites I mentioned earlier, the SC specifically disagreed that the draft was “involuntary servitude” or “slavery.” Therefore, the SC implicitly understands and states that the draft IS Constitutional.

As I said before, wishing it otherwise won’t make it so.

68

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
Incorrect. In the cites I mentioned earlier, the SC specifically disagreed that the draft was “involuntary servitude” or “slavery.” Therefore, the SC implicitly understands and states that the draft IS Constitutional.
[/QUOTE]

Please re-read my post. I already knew that and didn’t say the draft was unconstitutional.

69

The SC ruled on “the law of the land” stating that draftees aren’t slaves. Therefore, they are not slaves. Therefore, “slaves” do not mean “draftees.” Therefore it ‘helped’ my argument.

:confused:

70

For all those who say the draft would be a disaster because it would bring in a lot of people who don’t want to be there: One interesting aspect of the OP was the suggestion that if there was a draft there could be a non-military option: some kind of homefront service, in lieu of the military. Teach for America, or Americorps, or the CCC for a couple years – something like that. So if that were an option for all the draftees who would absolutely loathe the military, wouldn’t the military just get the guys who were okay with the idea and could make good soldiers, but just never joined for one reason or other?

71

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
The SC ruled on “the law of the land” stating that draftees aren’t slaves. Therefore, they are not slaves. Therefore, “slaves” do not mean “draftees.” Therefore it ‘helped’ my argument.

:confused:
[/QUOTE]

We’re all clear on what the law of the land is. Red Barchetta, unless I misunderstood him somewhere, was saying they are slaves whether or not the Court feels that they are legally considered slaves. [Somebody] Tell me if I’m missing something.

72

[QUOTE=Marley23]
We’re all clear on what the law of the land is. Red Barchetta, unless I misunderstood him somewhere, was saying they are slaves whether or not the Court feels that they are legally considered slaves. [Somebody] Tell me if I’m missing something.
[/QUOTE]

How does what he says override what the SC says? He’s mistaken.

73

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
How does what he says override what the SC says? He’s mistaken.
[/QUOTE]

He’s not overriding the Court, he has a different opinion from the court. You’re failing to grasp the difference between laws and opinions. I offered another example in post #65.

74

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
Unfortunately, in your case, you aren’t using it properly, as the Supreme Court has already decided.
[/QUOTE]

Since when did the Supreme Court dictate proper word usage?

Going by definition, as cited previously, my usage is correct - I’m not going to let a government entity decide affect my view otherwise.

75

Told you it wasn’t going to happen…

76

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Told you it wasn’t going to happen…
[/QUOTE]
I knew it wouldn’t go anywhere but I still wanted to see how people felt.
OK, new thread: Bring back the draft beer and get rid of the cans! Why or why not?
:wink: