One question I would like someone to ask during the debate

PEACE-NIK IN THE AUDIENCE: Senator McCain, based on the propensity of Republican Presidents to engage the country in wars, and seeing as fewer and fewer are joining the military, do you favor the reinstitution of the draft?:rolleyes:

McCain has been asked similar questions in the past, and he has truly been vague in some instances or hinted that he would support the re-institution of the draft.

I have no doubt that if our next president is John McCain, we will be involved in more campaigns in other theaters or full-blown wars with some other country, probably Iran, and he will keep us in Iraq for as long as it can get him a full 8 years in office.

McCain: World War III Would Justify Draft.

What exactly is controversial about saying that WWIII would justify a draft?

If we were engaged in a war of the magnatude of World Wars I or II, that probably would justify a draft.

The draft is extremely unpopular with our military and with the public as a whole. Our military is built around the idea of a volunteer army and would take a huge reorganization to adapt to a flood of conscripts. We have one of the best armies in the world, and a draft would ruin it.

If we were to see a war that is as justified as WWII, I believe we would have plenty of manpower. Enlistment rates went up after 9/11, and they would if there was an important and just war to be fought. A true WWIII would not have us fighting alone, either. Why should we destroy many of our people’s freedoms and weaken our army just so we can take up a larger proportion of shared responsibilities?

Keep in mind also that McCain’s idea of a WWIII includes scenarios that do not compare to past world wars. Bush said that a war with Iran would probably lead to WWIII. Newt Gingrich believes we are already in the early stages of a third world war. McCain believes we should take actions that almost certainly would provoke an armed conflict between NATO and Russia. When they talk about instituting a draft for a WWIII, they aren’t talking about a WWII scenario where there is a powerful country which is far more advanced than ourselves conquering our European allies. They are talking about situations like what we have in Iraq, only on a larger scale.

Controversial? Was that implied in this post? I believe I said that I would like someone to ask the question.

We needed a draft then because we did not have a large professional volunteer army already. It was a different time, and a war of a type that we are unlikely to see any time in the near future. Even in WWII, conscription was a tricky issue, and the military suspended voluntary elistment so there would not be a distinction between conscripts and volunteers.

The draft continued from 1948 until 1973, and by the time Nixon did away with it the military was glad it was gone. Even with a culture where the draft was a fact of life for the last 25 years, it was very unpopular. Now, 35 years after the draft ended, it would be hugely unpopular and probably provoke riots of the sort never seen in our country unless we were talking about a war where we were fighting an existential threat, and as I said before, in that case we would surely have plenty of volunteers and not have to destroy our professional army to have sufficient numbers.

Asking about the draft is stupid…it’s a bread and circus question. Draft? Ain’t going to happen. And asking about what convoluted situations MIGHT bring it back is…well, stupid.

If I were to ask a single question of the candidates it would be:

Obama: How do you propose to pay for all the stuff you have promised in this campaign?

McCain: Do you really think you have any chance at all to win this election?


My goodness! An incredibly smart question indeed:rolleyes:

It was tongue in cheek…as opposed to the OP, which was, in theory, serious.


Why does everything have to be so partisan?

Starting in the 20th century:

WWI: Democrat
WWII: Democrat
Viet Nam: Democrat
Korea: Democrat

Iraq 1: Republican
Afghanistan: Republican
Iraq 2: Republican

Oops, that’s 4 to 3, advantage: Democrats.

So why not, “PEACE-NIK IN THE AUDIENCE: Senator McCain, based on the propensity of Democrat Presidents to engage the country in wars, and seeing as fewer and fewer are joining the military, would you as a senator favor the reinstitution of the draft if Barack Obama were elected?”

Just doesn’t have the same zing, I guess.

WW1 and WWII were started by Democrats? Didn’t know that. :smack:

Thank you, I was wondering why the Republicans were being singled out for this when the Democrats have gotten far more US servicemen killed. Hell it was a Democrat that dropped the bombs (Which I approve of). As shitty and stupid as Bush has been, the casualty rate for this stupid war in Iraq has actually been low.


Just for your consideration, please bear in mind that Republican presidents ended the draft and draft registration during Vietnam, and the next Democratic president started draft registration up again because there were hostages he couldn’t get out of Iran. He then lost the election, Reagan took the oath of office and the hostages were released without a shot being fired.

I am not confident in my son’s chances to not get drafted with a Democratic president in office. Hell, with the way people keep rattling their sabers, I’m not confident that my daughter won’t get drafted. However, a Republican in office does not in my mind a draft guarantee make.

I think I remember the Japanese having something to do with WWII.

Senator McCain, according to your own senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, you plan to cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare-Medicaid over 10 years. Is this true?

Can’t go there atm, but isn’t the answer to that one on Factcheck?


It’s true that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor made war a fact, but FDR’s oil/steel embargo on Japan, and the pro-Britain Lend Lease policies were definately not making friends in any of the Axis camps.

Japan saw the embargo as a direct threat (Japan began the Pacific War with an estimated 12 month oil supply on hand), and an unacceptable level of American interference in Japan’s policy abroad (Japan did not agree that the US should have anything to say in Japan’s relations and actions in Manchuria and China. “Nonya buisness”).

So you’re saying that Japan got pissed off with somethings America did, decided to attack us, and that got us into WWII, right?

Japanese Democrats.

Japan didn’t want the US or anyone else nosing into it’s foreign policy (read: aggressive expansionism and empire building along the Pacific rim and China). They COULD have ceased said expansionism and thus prevented the embargo. Instead they decided to go to war.

I suppose, if you boil things down enough then…

…would be the case. To be sure.