Draft????
 

My roommate was watching CNN today, and he told me that if we go to war with Iraq that the draft mught be activated. I was wondering what everyone thoughts are about this topic. Personally, If I was asked to serve my country in a war, I would go.

Shouldn't we finish this war before we start another? :rolleyes:

My thoughts exactly Dionysus...

While I believe the U.S. gov't should be worried about nuclear weapons & stuff like that (I surely wouldn't want Saddam bombing places just for fun), I think they are coming across as major bullies because of the way they are going about with it and thus scaring (sp?) away some allies. (Which would probably mean more U.S. forces will need to be used)

"Draft Beer, not students!!"

Oooops, a flashback to my 60's roots.

Seriously, I think it would take a pretty long conventional land war to ever get the draft reinstated. We tend to use lots of airpower, high tech weapons, special operations and overwhelming firepower in our warfighting these days. I'm not sure the American public or Congress would support a long ground campaign in these circumstances.

By the way, I don't think women have to register for the draft like young men do. Is that fair in this era?

Women were not eligible for the draft while it was in effect before.

Some war analyst on FOX was saying a ground assault would take 23 days. Everyone is afraid it could turn into another Viet Nam. Sooo may lives lost and to what end? I am torn on this and can not be objective.

On on hand I do believe Iraq is a host and monetary ally to terrorists. I believe they will attempt stikes with weapons of "mass destruction". Knowing how they hate the USA, we naturally are a target.

As a mother of a son, I hope they don't bring back the draft.
Yet, as a mother, the risk to our nation's children and the children
of Iraq and the other countries that would be pulled into the "conflict" weighs on my mind. No easy answer here.

On a lighter(?) note-For as much as Saddam hates America, did anyone see the interview with one of his ex-wives? I missed it but the lead in was saying he dyes his hair, and uses viagra- wears a cowboy hat, smokes cigars and drinks bourbon while watching films of torture! My kinda guy!

JAM, you should always listen to FOX News with a grain of salt. Go to http://www.fair.org and you'll see what I mean. In fact, all the news outlet should be taken with a grain of salt. As for Iraq hosting Al-Qaeda, there has been sighting of Al-Qaeda in the north, which is not controlled by Saddam but by the Kurds. Though I doubt the Kurds want Al-Qaeda there because they are trying to get their own homeland. The Kurds are based on the Norhtern part of Iraq and the Southern part of Turkey. Both countries has repeatedly massacre the kurds to the point where I honestly believe that a silence genocide is occuring. Only recently are the Kurds allowed to teach their children Kurdish language in Turkey. How's that for a democratic Turkey.

As for the WMD, I've read way too many contradicting report not only from media's all over the world, but also from intelligence sources from many nations, including the US. (I get cool stuff with my job, beside going surfing) I'm not saying that Hussein got to go, but it should be done with international cooperation. There must be a reason, and so far Bush and his cohorts hasn't convince me there is a reason. And I'm not the only one.

Arya, That link is very interesting, but then you ALWAYS post interesting items!

On FOX- I guess I made the switch during the recount. Judy W was so biased with her sneers and intonation plus CNN is so liberal. Fox was the only alternative for the hours I could spend.

Then came the WTC. Stuck with FOX but I did enjoy watching Canada's take on it- totally different commentary. I will admit that Fox and Friends is biased, but hen it's biased to MY way of thinking and as a republican, that's hard to find. Sheppard Smith-Can you say TABLOID, but he is entertaining. The nighttime programing is what I really like with Hannity-Gretta and of course BILL! Now, a question-

I would love to know your opinion on Scott Ritter. At the moment,
I don't buy what he's saying, but his "movie" just came to light and I'm not up on all his research. He has the credentials, he has the background, but he also has money in his pocket from the American with Iraqi ties. Just wondering how you see it.

From what I have read in the usatoday, etc... the miliatray has or will meet its quotas for the year. Also, I wouldn't think as many ground troops would be needed as a major war because of all the air attacks, etc.

Thrillhouse,

As I said above, we tend to rely on airpower and firepower.

However, in the long run, airplanes can't take and hold ground. Sooner or later ground troops will have to go in and establish a presence. How many and for how long is the question.

By the way, nobody bit on my question about only men having to register for the Draft.

delt Alum-By the way, nobody bit on my question about only men having to register for the Draft.
I know...

Well, IMO-which as we know is always HUMBLE-I do not believe women have a place in the field. I'm not saying they shouldn't volunteer and have duties, but with women, men may hesitate on an action or take risks that they normally wouldn't take. Also a woman as a prisoner of war would be subjected to different kinds of assaults.
Consider that some enemies of nations take captured women
and rape them to "breed" as a form of genocide or as an act of the ULTIMATE humiliation.

I was against the fact that mothers of young children were in Afghanistan, especially those who had husbands serving as well. Draft women? No, I am not in favor of it. I am old fashioned enough to believe if we ever have an all out war we will need the women at home to take care of this country and our children.

Israel has three years of mandatory military service for all 18-year-olds, men and women.

Good points, JAM.

Our son spent a few weeks at the Tasis American School outside London the summer between his Freshman and Sophomore years in High School. He met a pair of female Israeli twins there he has kept in touch with via e-mail. They are both now in the Israeli Defense Forces.

I'm not real sure how I feel about the issue and raised it just to hear everyone's reaction. To be honest, I thought a lot of the women who are outspoken about gender equality would comment. I'm surprized they didn't.

There are a lot of non-combatant jobs in the Armed Forces, and I think it would be possible to draft women for those jobs and keep them out of harms way.

Again, I hope it's a moot point, because I certainly hope we don't get into a protracted land campaign in the Middle-East. I dont sense the support in the country or Congress for that. One of the things we should have learned in our Vietnam experience is that it is most difficult to win without that support, and almost impossible to win when campaigns are micro-managed by politicians who do not let the professional military officers do their jobs.

As a woman who considers herself "progressive" and believes in gender equality and who also grew up in a miltary super-area and understands somethings that others may not, I feel that the draft shouldn't be open to women in the traditional sense. With men at war, who would take care of the country? During WWII, women did work that was noncombatant here and abroad, and during Vietnam, there were women there (as nurses, etc.), but not fighting. Imagine how female prisoners of war--and there have been a few--would be treated. Not saying that men are treated better, but there's the potential for so much bad treatment just based on gender.

Ultimately, I don't think there's going to be a draft. There's not much support for a war against Iraq (not that there was tons of support for the military "advisors" in Vietnam, but I digress). The US doesn't have much experience anymore with land warfare--which was one of a problem in Vietnam, that the enemy was expert at guerilla warfare and we weren't.

something to think about--

if women were to be drafted....what would happen if a husband AND a wife were to get drafted? who would take care of their kids? how would they determine what would happen to them if there was no one to place them with? what if BOTH parents died? and how would you determine that wife number 1 could stay home with her young kids but wife number 2 had to go fight even if they were both drafted?

plus, i don't know about other women, but i would be a burden to any army. i can't run fast, i can't run long, i'm not strong and i would just make a lousy soldier!;)

i don't think we'll have a draft any time soon. but i do think that many students join ROTC and the army to help pay for college...NOT with the intentions that they will ever become real soldiers. many will be in for a rude awakening unfortunately.

Wrong. Men serve longer than women in the IDF first of all. And all divisions within the IDF are very different and do not follow the PC trend going on in other military units in other countries. If you do not pass the test, you do not get in. This is the reason why you will rarely see a girl within the Air Force or the Paratroopers.

Dionysus, this is all part of the same war first of all. Second of all, our military is designed to handle more than one front at a time.

Arya, I'm sorry but you are very one sided in your thought on Iraq as well as the Kurds.

-Rudey
--Off to run

cash78mere-i don't think we'll have a draft any time soon. but i do think that many students join ROTC and the army to help pay for college...NOT with the intentions that they will ever become real soldiers. many will be in for a rude awakening unfortunately.

I have to agree with you on this! Also, a young man I know got in trouble for drugs about 2 years ago. It wasn't his first offense and it was more than grass. Rather than go to jail (he had just graduated HS and this would mean, NO EDUCATION) he chose to go ARMY. I am glad this option was open so he could have a clean record and still earn a degree, but I wonder how he feels NOW, knowing the gravity of the choice he made.

Drafting women is not a bad idea at this point.

There are many support capacities they could fill thus freeing more men for combat roles. *shrug*

Rudey's point: The military was configured under Reagan to be able to fight a two front war and a third more minor action.

However, I don't believe we are up to that manpower ability anymore. The military took a lot of cuts in the past 10 years. Although, our manpower committment in Afghanistan is not really huge.

I don't really have any sympathy for National Guard or ROTC people that are suddenly faced with real service. They signed up.

Munchkin03's point: I understand what you are saying .. but think for a second! Men can be raped also.

An electric shock stick in the anus may be more painful than even straight rape on a girl.

Also, I'll step out on a limb and assume that being tortured to death is NOT fun regardless of the methodology or your plumbing!

The sanctity of your sexual apparatus may not be a good reason to keep women out of the military . . .

The sanctity of your sexual apparatus may not be a good reason to keep women out of the military . . .

No, but the children that could be born and the motherless children at home are. Won't argue against office duties, only being in a position to be captured. That's just one person's opinion though.

Yeah fathers are completely unnecessary in modern day America anyway so mothers should remain safe at home while fathers are put at risk.

-Rudey
--Take away all fathers and you have a society of mothers who dress boys in pink tutus and make them take dancing lessons...scary world.

Thats a good rule

Rudy, you over simplified my statement. That point could fill a whole other thread on GC. Of course fathers aren't unimportant and I did not SAY they were. When you consider the age of most draftees, I think it is fair to say the children would be very young.

Can you imagin a 8 month pregnant woman in a fox hole?
...and when the babies come, and there would be babies, are you or any man equiped to nurse them?
This is silly.

Beside, the REST of my post stated-Won't argue against office duties, only being in a position to be captured. That's just one person's opinion though.

I had double posted and the original one did not clarify, you simply copied it within a matter of seconds prior to the deletion.

Now now, I don't think they're sending pregnant mothers into fox holes. I did not say that and if your original point was that you were worried that pregnant women would be forced to serve in a physical role should the draft include women, then I totally missed that; I apologize. However, you should know that as applied to males and their families there are a great deal of exemptions. Were the draft applied to the female population, I am positive that they'd allow exemptions and priviledges to women as well.

-Rudey
--We can always take over Canada and make them fight for us.

:p Your welcome to try

EXEMPTIONS- Is there a list of what the old ones were, or does anyone remember? I do recall hearing 4-F. I always thought there was an "only son" clause or something about the end of a famly name?

Women-I wonder if they DID include women in the draft, if we would see a slew of pregnacies- the draft dogers of the 2000's?

Wars Suck! Wars are a Reallity!

Why?

For Economics and self presavation!

I did not Go To Nam! I have never been in the Military! Green Was Not My Color!

I wore Blue as a Police Officer instead!

War is not a glorious thing of who is right or wrong, it is about killing pure and simple!
Have you seen anyone shot, Cut, Having a baby, drug overdosed, burned in an accident or in a tramtic car accident where there was not a solid bone in the whole body? It is not pretty or glorious is is heart rendering!

It tore me up many times and still think about 2 of the situations where I could do nothing about it! This is after almost 30 years.

A couple of thoughts -- just to keep the pot stirred...

Women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses.

I think it would be possible to "protect" women to a large extent by keeping then in non-conbatant roles. Of course, nothing is perfect, and some certainly could be killed or captured.

There could be regulations put in place to not send a father and mother into a combat zone at the same time. There was a rule about sole surviving sons during Vietnam.

If women were drafted, it could leave more men on the homefront to keep running the country. The idea is not to increase the size of the military -- just make things more "equitable."

There are lots of jobs in the Armed Forces that do not require physical strength and agility. Women could fill them well.

As for the former draft, 4-F was unfit for service for physical reasons (a lot of hugh football player types, etc. got off for "injuries" like bad knees, etc.) , 1-S and 2-S were student deferments. There were others.

I need to confess now. I have two daughters in their twenties. I'm not really in favor of drafting women on the face of it. However, there are some very good reasons for thinking about it.

Saddam
 

woohoo Saddam is letting U.N inspectors to check out his country... he must have hid his stuff already :p

- Women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses.

Many women are still serving. I am most definantely not a nurse yet serve in the Army.

-There could be regulations put in place to not send a father and mother into a combat zone at the same time. There was a rule about sole surviving sons during Vietnam.

Currently there is nothing in place for this. My husband and I are both serving in the same unit. If we deploy we both go. The children will be taken care of by family members. That was an arangement we had to make when we made the decision to have children. Why would they change it???

AS for women being drafted. It won't happen. Imagine the uproar when they require women to register for selective service and until that happens how can they draft them???

Kitty,

You are so right. I stated that very poorly. I should have said, "In past conflicts, women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses." That was the intent.

I know that during the Gulf War there were many stories of both parents being sent. Why would they change it? Public opinion, I suppose, would be the only reason.

JAM, the rule during Vietnam, as I recall it, didn't have anything to do with the "last of a line," but rather the "sole surviving son" of a family that had lost other sons. (Kind of like the "reason" for the plot in "Saving Private Ryan") I suppose it had the effect of saving the family "name" in some cases, except that if the son were an only child -- or an only son in a family with daughters, the rule did not apply to him. I am an only child, for instance, and the rule did not apply to me.

As for the comment about joining ROTC to pay for college -- I think you're exactly right. That wasn't the case for us in 1965. War wasn't a possibility -- it was happening. I very vividly remember some grizzled old sergeant telling us that if we joined ROTC, we would be officers and give him orders, but if we didn't, we would get drafted anyway and he would be bossing us around -- and he hadn't finished high school. It was an effective recruitment technique. Of course we were too dumb to realize that the professional sergeants (or Chiefs in the Navy) were really the people who make the services run on the day to day level. They had the experience, the newly minted ROTC Second Johns only had a new degree and a shiny gold bar.

I'm editing here because it just occurred to me that one reason for a deferment in the early Vietnam era was being married and having a family. That was changed before the end of the "conflict." You could "play" the system if you got married during your Junior and had a child sometime during your Senior year and go directly from a student deferment to a married with a child deferment.

Oh, man, this is going to get confusing; now there's Kitty_Kat and me.

I seriously doubt that the draft will be mobilized within the next 50 years. Wars are becoming so much more technology-based that the kind of Army that one saw in Vietnam is becoming superfluous. It's all about the air raids and the special ops now.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KappaKittyCat
[B]Oh, man, this is going to get confusing; now there's Kitty_Kat and me.

HEHE...
I registered first LOL :) :p :) :D

But I have way more posts than you.

Boy, I'm not getting into that kind of war (the last two posts). I've been close to Kat fights before:

I agree. That's pretty much what I've said earlier -- but, in the end, it still takes ground troops to take and occupy territory. Airplanes and missles and ships can't do that.

But I don't see huge "set piece" battles like the World Wars or even Desert Storm was supposed to turn into. At least I hope not.