I think JohnnyM’s point touched on a deeper issue that is difficult to address - the position that armed conflict, sooner or later, is inevitable, and given that, we ought to have some way of ensuring we have people ready to engage in it, however unpopular it may be politically.
Note that this doesn’t take into account the issue of time needed to bring the forces up to snuff, character of the conflict, or pretty much anything else except:
- war is necessary, and
- not enough people recognize or respect point 1).
YMMV.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Doubtful. We’re ulikely to go to war with North Korea without Chinese and South Korean support and both countries would provide troops if for no other reason than to have a say in occupation policy. An all out war between the US and China is unlikely and if it did occur would almost certainly go nuclear. It’d take 6-12 months for a draft to increase the size of the Army. By which time the Sino-American war would be over and both sides would divert all their resources into rebuilding.
[/QUOTE]
If a North Korean nuke was to hit Hawaii, China would help to invade their longtime ally North Korea? I’m skeptical. The U.S. might bomb and blockade NK for six to 12 months, then invade. Remember the last time back in the 1950s, when China came in on the North Koreans’ side?
Pardon me for not seeing how a Sino-American war would be likely to go nuclear. If China invades Taiwan, for instance.
Btw, a year or two ago the U.S. government began… ermmm… refurbishing local draft boards as a precautionary measure. A prudent move, imho.
[QUOTE=johnny M]
my point was " unless you have served in a war zone you cannot imagine the experience what we war veterans went through and never will".
[/QUOTE]
Alright, and?
Our volunteer force seems to address that need. And I think the rest of the statement is dubious - it sounds like you are saying that governments need to have the power to get involved in wars and send soldiers to them, even if the nation is opposed.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
it sounds like you are saying that governments need to have the power to get involved in wars and send soldiers to them, even if the nation is opposed.
[/QUOTE]
Naw, just playing devil’s advocate.
As to the “you had to be there” part, that only really applies to describing the horrific experience of combat. As to making you understand the need for people willing to serve – or helping you to “grow up” – warfighting experience has exactly dick to do with that. JohnnyM was obviously conflating combat veterans with just plain servicemembers, the better to array them all against us poor deluded civilian softies in his hard little boot-camp walnut of a brain.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Which brings us back to the whole “peanut throwing righties” argument you made.
[/quote]
You mean the peanut-throwing righties haven’t been jumping on Rangel over this?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I guess that must include **SteveMB **and Marley23, too.
[/quote]
If I had said that Rangel’s only critics were the righties, you’d have a point. Since I didn’t, you’re merely tilting at straw men.
But in any event, to get back to the original topic, I can’t build up a head of steam against Rangel’s stunt. Sure, it’s a stunt, but if it gets people to actually address the topic – namely, just where the fig newton are we getting all these troops from? – I think the ends would justify the means in this case.