General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI missed the memo...why all the draft/conscription threads?
are we mobilizing for war, or is this just a return of a perennial topic thread?
djean111
(14,255 posts)I was surprised at this, more warmongers than I thought there were.
The idea that if we all had skin in the game - or, rather, the skin of our children - people would organize or unite or something is pretty naive. The police are real ready for demonstrators now.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I wasn't sure if there was something specific
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... called The War in Vietnam, say you have no idea of what you speak. Nothing motivates quite like knowing that you or someone you love is about to become cannon fodder.
Naïve, my ass.
djean111
(14,255 posts)What I am saying is that I don't think the government really cares what we think any more. They will be able to stop demonstrations by kettling and crowd contro; with tasers, tear gas, sonic screamers, who knows what else the police have been gifted with, and raring to use; the media may be complicit, the FBI/CIA/NSA will be all over the internet and telephone lines, listening, knocking down doors, arresting, nipping in the bud. The politicians have the big money behind them, and, IMO, only care about voters during election season. I don't want people to die, waiting for the government to respond to public opinion.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)How long have we been at constant war? Showing ANY signs of that changing? What are you doing right now to change that dynamic? If you KNEW your grandkids were headed to a gruesome death in the meatgrinder MIC's latest adventure, would that motivate you? It sure would me.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)A draft with no exemptions of any kind.
Let's see the GOP war Hawks vote for that.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)will lose the youth vote for a generation. Which is what Charlie Rangel seems to want given his continued introduction of draft legislation.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)former9thward
(32,017 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)It has to be no exceptions. No deferments.
Everyone at risk.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)Since it was so easy to get a deferment. It was not that easy and most deferments expired at some point.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And it was much easier than you think.
But that's irrelevant.
If we are going to go to war, then everyone should be ready and expected to serve. No exceptions.
Otherwise, its not worth doing.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)stopping those dumb wars from happening was they way to prevent people from being sent to them.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... is not the same as holding the actual draft and sending them.
If our government wants to have a war, then every American should be ready and expected to serve.
If a war is worth having, then everyone should be involved.
And in case you had not noticed, not having the draft has not prevented us from sending them to dumb wars, has it?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The old would still send the young off to fight and die. If you really wanted 'no exemptions', you'd have to eliminate the age range, and have every single adult take part, no matter how old.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)No exemptions.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Which war? Iraq, ISIS, Ukraine? Iran??
I'm wondering
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If we have to have any war, we should all be at risk.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)option of service along with my entire class of people until I was too old and injured to be of use. I find it surprising that in a country where LGBT people had to chain themselves to fences, get arrested, be discharged just to fight for the right to be at risk, so many people suddenly seem passionate about the idea that everyone must be at risk.
djean111
(14,255 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Your response is stunning in its silliness.
If we are going to go to war, at any time, everyone should be ready and expected to serve, period. No exceptions.
The fact that the government would not take you, or other LGBT folks in the PAST, is irrelevant to that statement.
Everyone means everyone. No exceptions.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)to die from products made from our Industrial Military Complex? Who MADE US GOD?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)but I think there would have to be some exemptions- my father was 4-F in WWII due to a medical condition.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Being sent to war (at a minimum) disrupts your life, even if you don't go to the front.
Everyone should be subject to such disruption ... if any war is so important that we need to send any troops, then we need to open up the risk to everyone.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)medical problems do have to be considered. My father had TB. How far into basic training was he going to get?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Or, if it's a very serious illness, and that alone might kill him, he's excluded.
But the only way this works is if everyone, and I mean everyone, is at risk of going to fight, or having their life significantly disrupted as part of the war effort.
Think Rosey the Riviter, and then some.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)a la chickenhawk Cheney.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Spazito
(50,351 posts)support boots on the ground to fight ISIS. Would they be so supportive if it were their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers wearing those boots? Hence the draft threads, I believe.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/isis-poll-americans-want-boots-on-the-ground
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumf
former9thward
(32,017 posts)And that war was supplied by a draft which was also supported.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)"silent majority?". Total BS back then.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)Twice.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)because he won, doesn't support the logic that the public supported the war.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)No credible person suggests he "stole" it dirty tricks or not. By November, 1972 the war had nearly ended. Nixon had "Vietnamesed" the war as he called it and the peace accords were signed in January, 1973 just two months after the election.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Twice.
Spazito
(50,351 posts)being drafted, yes, it was supported. That changed when the body bags started coming home in overwhelming numbers and the public realized the predominant men being drafted were those without money and connection and veterans like John Kerry spoke up.
If a draft were instituted, one that didn't allow the discriminatory 'outs' the previous draft had, where the 'lottery' was equal across the board, I tend to think those who are quick to want 'boots on the ground' would not be so quick at all.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)The military turns away volunteers now because it has enough recruits. In order to have a draft volunteers would have to be banned -- which would make no sense.
Spazito
(50,351 posts)so why would another draft ban volunteers? THAT makes no sense.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)A draft was needed because there were not enough people willing to volunteer. Now there are. It is simple math.
Spazito
(50,351 posts)There is only "enough people willing to volunteer" because instead of limiting the number re tours of duty, the volunteers are sent back over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Try that math on for size.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)Don't like troops being " sent back over and over and over and over and over and over again" then stop using them in unneeded military adventures. Try that math on for size.
Spazito
(50,351 posts)Which was exactly the point to begin with, the public might not be so quick to support "unneeded military adventures" if they were risking their own loved ones, had skin in the game.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)We should have a military with volunteer professionals. With today's technology it would be insane to have people there that did not want to be there. The draft has stopped no war despite people "having skin in the game".
Spazito
(50,351 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm thinking 61-64 things opinion among young people really faded as troop strength escalated. By 68 rejection of it by young people was a large part of Chicago Dem convention demonstrations. After My Lai, things went downhill and the turning point battle of Vietnam was fought by the Ohio guard against students at Kent State.
At that point, there was only interest in finding a way out.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Spazito
(50,351 posts)I have no idea what that is, have never heard that term before.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the theater of action this past decade in sw Asia ...
-istan is deemed racist by some so I left that off
Spazito
(50,351 posts)I understand now.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Been there a couple of times.... it sucks.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)-"istan" is simply the Persian word for "place of" or "land of". The portmanteau of "Sandistan" would simply man "Land of Sand". Sandlandistan is a bit more redundant, translating to "Land of Land of Sand". Balochistan translates to "Land of the Balochs". Uzbekistan translates to "Land of the Uzbeks". Pakistan actually has two different meanings. "Paki" is derived from the Persian word for "pure", so Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure". It was also selected because it contains the first letters of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Sindh, which were the major parts of India carved off to create Pakistan. It can be taken to mean "Lands of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Sindh".
Last I checked, there was nothing inherently racist about using loanwords from another language.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the istan suffix apparently refers to an Islamic nation
Xithras
(16,191 posts)San/Stan is Persian in origin, is only used in areas that were historically part of Persia, and doesn't really carry any significance beyond it's basic meaning as a place identifier. Khoristan/Khorasan are names used for places in Iran. Both names literally translate to "Land in the East" or "Place to the East" in Persian. Persians, and Indian Muslims, also tend to refer to northern India as "Hindustan" and have for thousands of years. It simply means, "Land of the Hindus"...and Hindus aren't Muslim. It's simply a way to refer to a place, and doesn't have any religious or ethnic connotation. In the parts of the Muslim world that don't speak languages derived from Persian, it doesn't have any meaning at all. In the Arabic speaking Muslim world, the word for place is "makaan", and "stan/san" is essentially a meaningless foreign word.
My guess is that the people complaining about it didn't understand what it actually meant. And, for what it's worth, the proper Persian form would be something along the lines of "raigistan", which would translate to "Land of Sand".
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Generally, I try not to use terms that upset DUers. Sometimes offending seems hard to anticipate.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I assumed he just wanted to get a feel for what people on the left side of the political spectrum felt in re the idea in more detail than just 'against'.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)started as a response to a survey question, then I decided I may as well make a new thread out of it.
So 'twas the others who got my mind on the subject.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Beats me why but we've been intervening in Iraq for decades and we think this time it's going to work. Several presidents both GOP and dem have ok'd some form of military action there.
To me if we go to war we should have a declaration of war, a draft, raise taxes, impose rationing to direct resources to the war effort and nationalize private industry to contribute to the war effort. If the threat to our country is not serious to do that then it's not worth one american life.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)some day we will be as multi-faceted as a cut gem
Sarcastica
(95 posts)I believe Fox is running a 90 minute expose' this week. Expect it to be regularly cited fior the next few months.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Alternative" Sexual Practices, and a host of other "fighting over nothing" topics that are common here at DU!!!
We will never go back to a draft--most people don't qualify, even if they go back to the slackened standards of a decade ago. No sense in spending tens of thousands outfitting and training someone who isn't going to make the cut. The All Volunteer Force has been a success for well over a quarter century.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)Bombing the Moon!!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)This place is seriously crazy, sometimes!!!!!!
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)As long as the poor "volunteer" to be cannon fodder it's okey dokey.
Paladin
(28,262 posts)Hawkish politicians, an enabling media, and a worshipful Thank You For Your Service public mindset have turned the instigation of warfare into a thoughtless, shoot-from-the-hip exercise. Next up: Boots on the ground against ISIS. Permanent military deployment at distant global sites is not something we ought to be tolerating.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)They do not understand history either. I used to think the draft was what ended Viet Nam but have learned that that is not true.