Fantasy: Let's do away with the Volunteer Army and draft rich kids

[bizzwire]

Mindmirror wrote :

It is interesting how the rich diverted a draft. This doesn’t necessarily show that there are more volunteer minorities/poor whites than rich whites, but it certainly does show the imbalance in our system according to the failing concept of capitalism.

whooooosh…

So, are you saying that the North Korean, Cuban and Chinese armed forces are chock-full of rich kids?

[sailor]

*Originally posted by AvidReader *
Now really. You don’t think that anyone is seriously considering this do you?

You seem to have missed the point. It is a philosophical question, to wit: If the military was made up only of children of people who earned over $150,000 a year would their still be the same attitude on the part of our leaders to rush into wars arbitrarily, such as the impending war with Iraq.

I have a hard time applying the word “philosophical” to the question and “stupid” seems to me much more appropriate. Maybe Philosophical at the level of 13 year old kids. In the same league as “would you rather eat two pounds of shit or force your mother to eat two pounds of shit?” and “what would happen if all those pretty girls who refuse to have sex with us were given the choice of having sex with us or with an 80 year old man?” They are at about the same “philosophical” level. My philosophical meter points squarely in the “stupid” range.

[AvidReader]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**I have a hard time applying the word “philosophical” to the question and “stupid” seems to me much more appropriate. Maybe Philosophical at the level of 13 year old kids. In the same league as “would you rather eat two pounds of shit or force your mother to eat two pounds of shit?” and “what would happen if all those pretty girls who refuse to have sex with us were given the choice of having sex with us or with an 80 year old man?” They are at about the same “philosophical” level. My philosophical meter points squarely in the “stupid” range. **

Gee, what can I say to match such eloquence. Your command of the English language is astounding. Impeccable. I acquiesce in the face of such incisive logic. …oui, touche

Oh, and by the way…would you, I mean could you, you know…let your mother eat shit?

[sailor]

*Originally posted by AvidReader *
Gee, what can I say to match such eloquence. Your command of the English language is astounding. Impeccable. I acquiesce in the face of such incisive logic. …oui, touche

You will be pleased to note English is my second language.

Oh, and by the way…would you, I mean could you, you know…let your mother eat shit?

You should ask that question to the NPR guys who specialize in this kind of philosophy. My mother’s son does not waste time on such thoughts.

Asking what would happen if only those in favor of war could be sent to war or only those in favor of a certain social program were obligated to support it might be a valid topic. But asking what would happen if only rich people, whether they support the war or not, were sent to fight is utterly stupid and in line with “what would happen if rich people were made to collect garbage and clean latrines on weekends?”. I just cannot see anything useful coming out of that. Or did the NPR guy get some useful insight which would help make the world a better place?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The sins of the fathers visited on the sons, eh? It’s a cute idea, but has a creepy undertone of suggesting that children are the property of their parents. It’d be great if we could have a system in which senators had to fight on the front lines themselves, but somehow I don’t see the military accepting most of them.

Daniel

[burundi]

Y’know, Avid, I’ve been indulging a similar fantasy myself lately. Not a draft for all rich kids, but a draft for all children of the President and members of Congress. If Bush knew that he was putting Jenna and Barbara’s asses on the line, I think it might temper his attitude. It would never, ever happen, but it’s nice to dream.

[puddleglum]

Here is a quote about a study released by the Pentagon last month:

According to the Pentagon report, black soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen make up 15% of combat units across the military—including infantry, armor, and artillery units. In contrast, African-American servicemen hold 36% of the functional support and administration positions, and 27% of medical and dental career positions. The numbers indicate that, as a whole, blacks are more likely to take advantage of the skills the military can teach them that could serve them well later in civilian life.

On the whole this idea would hurt black people and the poor, as well reducing the effectiveness of our military, making us all less safe. But on the other hand whoever thought it up probably feels he is very clever, which was probably the whole point.

[John_Mace]

sailor wrote: “I have a hard time applying the word “philosophical” to the question and “stupid” seems to me much more appropriate. Maybe Philosophical at the level of 13 year old kids. In the same league as “would you rather eat two pounds of shit or force your mother to eat two pounds of shit?” and “what would happen if all those pretty girls who refuse to have sex with us were given the choice of having sex with us or with an 80 year old man?” They are at about the same “philosophical” level. My philosophical meter points squarely in the “stupid” range.”

That was damn funny, sailor! I, for one, thought you made a good point. This “philosophical” question was just another way of taking a cheap shot at “the rich”.

[WillSantini]

*Originally posted by burundi *
Y’know, Avid If Bush knew that he was putting Jenna and Barbara’s asses on the line, I think it might temper his attitude.

I’d welcome the twins into my platoon.

[msmith537]

John Mace
That was damn funny, sailor! I, for one, thought you made a good point. This “philosophical” question was just another way of taking a cheap shot at “the rich”.

I second that.
And I don’t follow the logic either. I’m sure there are plenty of wealthy people who served in the military or have sons and daughters in the military academies ROTC programs at various colleges. How does forcing more rich kids to serve in the military influence foreign policy anyway?

I think its funny how people’s first reaction in a free society is to want to curb the freedom of others who do not agree with their point of view.

[Slithy_Tove]

In Sparta, Republican Rome, Japan, etc. the children of the rich were the only ones who did the fighting: it was dangerous to allow the lower orders access to weapons. And none of these societies are remembered for backing down from a fight.

Historically, the elites can spare their children more easily than the poor: in Carthage it was only rich kids who were sacrificed at the tophet. Poor kids were needed to re-supply the pool of scut labor, and to provide for their parents. An enslaving elite only endangers itself by becoming overpopulated with too many pretenders to the throne/contenders for the top spots.

There is a historical progression of terrible things that were at least less terrible than what went before:

Slavery was better than wiping out conquered populations: although it wasn’t the point, it resulted in people surviving.

Slave armies and mass conscripted armies were an improvement over elite armies. Again, although it wasn’t the intended, it resulted in making those societies more democratic than they had been.

And volunteer armies are the most recent democratizer, although some argue that the economy has been jury-rigged so the poor kids have to look for work in the military. I don’t entirely agree that there was any master plan to this effect; it’s just that the baby boomer are too old to go through boot camp, but they are still young enough to clog up the job market.

The ultimate improvement, of course, would be no more war, but that’s way down the pipeline.

[ElJeffe]

It seems the assumption of the OP is that currently the government is too eager to engage in combat, and by establishing this fantasy “sacrifice the rich” scheme, their tempers will be soothed, and we would only fight when we needed to.

However, if you accept the premise that right now we’re too eager to fight - that our elected politicians have too little at stake - then I don’t see how you could fail to notice that drafting only the wealthy would put too much at stake for our government. Politicians would tend avoid war at all costs, even when necessary, if it meant the lives of their own.

I would prefer that the decisions of my representative government not be compromised by the blood of its children. The best frame of mind to be in when deciding on life and death is one of objectivity - someone who can weigh X lives in one basket and Y lives in the other, and come away with a rational decision. I don’t know about the other posters here, but if I had to choose between the life of my wife, or of 10 random strangers across the globe, I would choose my wife every time. Somehow, I don’t think I’m alone.

Also, who would you rather have defending you? Someone who made a conscious and willing decision to do so, or someone who was forced to by the government?
Jeff

[FIREMAN44]

Jeff, I agree 100%, if they decide to sign up, then they know the chances and the choices.
Another thing, 20 years ago you could consider $150,000 a year, a rich household, but not anymore. Lissa, there are real rich kids in the service now and I will bet you they live the same way as all the other soldiers do; no caviar or maids and such.
They have all signed up to serve the USA and they will probably be fighting to liberate the Iraqi people shortly. Whether or not we believe in the war, we need to support and believe in OUR soldiers.