Having a draft would be a FANTASTIC idea. No, really!

[Danger Mouse]

     There is an increasing number of DUer's claiming that
instituting a military draft would bring a swift end to the
Iraq War. They claim that once the masses really feel the
pinch, once it is their children (or themselves) in the line
of fire, then public support for the war will erode
completely, and Bush will feel pressured to end it sooner.
Also, according to some, a draft could be instituted that
would leave no exception for the elite...their children would
be fighting, too.
     This would not only bring a quick end to the war, but
prevent such a thing from happening in the future.
Sounds nice, right? 
     There's a few minor problems with this, however. Really,
it's just a few small issues. Nothing big. Totally
insignificant. Honestly.
     1.) Since when does Bush give a flying rat's ass on a
cracker what people think? In the case of Iraq and the War on
Terror, Bush literally believes he is on a mission from 'God.'
He has stubbornly insisted that he will continue even if Laura
and Barney are the only ones still supporting him (and you can
be pretty sure he means it). He doesn't care. More protests?
More anger? He won't care. In fact, with a draft, Bush would
get more troops, lots more! Enough to invade
Iran...Syria...North Korea...hey, he'll have as much meat for
the grinder as he needs! Why stop now??
     2.) The Republicans won't go for the draft...they're too
smart. They realize it for what it is: complete political
suicide. The Democrats currently control Congress, and if
there were a draft, guess who would bear the blame? C'mon,
guess. It ain't Santa Claus! The Dems would take the blame,
and you can bet your bottom dollar that the right wing, and
their cronies in the media, would be screaming from every
station that 'The Democrats want to send your babies to WAR!!'
The American people will not support a draft...it'll provoke
incredible rage...and the Democrats will bear the blame. This
would be a dream situation for the right...the Dems would
implode, the country would be in chaos, they'd have masses of
new troops...the possibilities for abuse are endless. 
    3.) Bush will always have the support of the people who
are profiting from this war, as long as the war continues.
    4.) Y'know, there were lots of protests and stuff, but
Vietnam didn't end RIGHT AWAY...it took years, and piles of
bodies, before it came to an end. Oh, and has everyone
forgotten about Korea? That one people seem to forget about a
lot. Many of our troops died there as well...and it wasn't a
war of necessity either. Guess it's easy to sweep that one
under the rug. In essence, it would mean an increased level of
bloodshed, and a whole lot more people from my generation
getting put to the sword. For the sake of making a political
point. Comforting that there are many on DU who are so willing
to shove us under a bus to advance their cause.
    5.) You think that the draft would include ALL people,
rich and poor? You think that the elite would be seeing
combat? Oh stop, you're killin' me! :rofl: Money always buys a
way out in America. A draft would be a great way to thin out
the lower and middle classes, though.

    Wow, all these reasons make a draft sound absolutely
FANTASTIC! No, wait. It sounds like a terrible idea. Whoops.
We are flesh and blood human beings. We are on your side, too,
and want the war to end as much as you do. Yet it is our fate
you are gambling with, our lives. We are not fodder to serve a
political cause, nor are we sacrificial lambs for you to
dispatch to get to Bush.
 

[dsc]

1. Truman left office at 22 percent

largely based on Korea. A draft would have ended the war sooner, though now it likely wouldn't given Bush being a lame duck.

[Danger Mouse]

6. Korea...the forgotten war.

Bush compares himself to Truman, too. Another way in which he justifies himself.

[Recursion]

21. There was a draft

For that matter there was a peacetime draft throughout most of the 1950's

[Danger Mouse]

25. I think the poster was referring to the current war when he/she said

that at one point a draft might've ended the war sooner.
I mentioned Korea because it was similar circumstances to Vietnam...essentially a war of choice, a draft, lots of troops dead...yet it is so often forgotten. Why is that?

[Recursion]

28. Perspective, I guess

The country was still pretty harrowed from the much-larger WWII, and for all its horror it didn't have the outrage factor of Vietnam -- we were there pretty much for the reasons the government said we were there for, and fighting the standing army of another superpower. I also think the bomb had been used recently enough that, as callous as this sounds, people were kind of grateful that it didn't come out worse than it did.

[Danger Mouse]

29. Interesting.

All of it makes sense, and yet it's sad...to have such a bloody war so easily forgotten...

[valerief]

2. If there's a draft, no one will go because there aren't enough military

troops to make them go.

[Danger Mouse]

4. Interesting idea.

If that were the case, then, what would it accomplish?

[valerief]

15. What would having the draft accomplish? Uh, nothing. nt

[Danger Mouse]

You're wrong. It would definitely accomplish one thing, beyond a doubt.

It would guarantee that the Democrats will not get a president elected in 2008.

[valerief]

20. Well, okay, if that's what you want. Draft, it is. nt

[Danger Mouse]

24. Hooray! Draft for all!

It worked so well in Kore...wait, wait...no, it was fantastic in Viet...uhm...okay, okay, so it'll really work this time, honest! Third time's the charm!

[uppityperson]

5. What?

[valerief]

16. What what? nt

[uppityperson]

23. What did you mean...

"If there's a draft, no one will go because there aren't enough military troops to make them go."

The military will be necessary to force people into being drafted and serving and there won't be enough military to do so? Or did you mean something else? Thanks. (what what what? your turn) :hippie:

[Screwfly]

45. Not to mention

guys showing up at the induction center and do a Terminator number on the place.

[uppityperson]

3. Great post, I always point out the last one.

Those with enough money or pull will be able to avoid the draft. Congress won't pass a draft bill that those with money and power won't be able to get out of. It won't happen.

[Danger Mouse]

7. Of course. I mean, THEIR children are the elite.

You think these career politicians have the stones to put their children at risk? Not bloody likely, Dems and Repubs alike.

[MadMaddie]

8. All valid points but you missed something...

If the Democratic Congress can get enough Repugs to deceide no more troops can have their tours of duty extended withought a years rest...and no more back door draft of enlisted men and women and no more allowing criminals in the military because they can't meet their recruiting goal....there is only one alternative....Congress doesn't have to make the choice it will be Heir Prezident...

Congress can change the rules of the draft so no one is excluded....all eligbile men and women starting at the age of 18-34 no matter what their careers, class will be up for the draft....There will be no deferrements like Cheney and Limpballs got...and

here is the important thing citizens like you and me must serve on the draft boards....to ensure that everyone is treated equally.

You are right Vietnam did not end until 52,000 brave men and women died...It is our duty to make sure that end this war so we will not be looking at that number ever again....

The bottom line is the all volunteer military has been destroyed by this administration and we will have to go to a system similar to Israel. where all citizens serve at the age of 18 (someone may have more details)

[Danger Mouse]

12. Congress could change the rules but won't.

Like I said, why should they put their children at risk? That would take INTEGRITY...something sorely lacking in Congress in these times.

[uppityperson]

18. Indeed and this is the prime reason I am very much against a draft.

Some will always get out.

[Danger Mouse]

19. And those who get out will be the children of the very villains

Responsible for this mess. The idea that they would see combat is laughable.

[Book Lover]

27. If all eligible men and women between 18 and 34 were drafted,

then exactly who will care for the children they leave behind? Dontcha think just a few of those folks would be married to each other?

[fizzgig]

9. i couldn't have said it better myself

:applause:

i will not be meat for the grinder. my sister, my cousins, my friends, my coworkers will not, nor should they be, either.

the rich kids won't serve. the politicians' kids won't serve. it will be the poor kids and the brown kids that get shipped off to die in the sands of the middle east and points beyond.

re-instating the draft is the right's wet dream but they're not going to lay their careers on the line for it. absolutely not.

i just hope that the dems realize that it will not work in the way everyone seems to think it will. it will not end the war, but will escalate our military activity across the world. the bodies will just continue to pile up and for what?

bush won't listen. none of them will.

[Danger Mouse]

36. It would be like a gigantic toxic waste souffle set to exlode in our faces.

...so to speak.

[Scooter24]

10. I'll put it this way...

I will never vote for anyone that supports a draft, be it Democrat or Republican. If their opponent is anti-draft, then they just won my vote. I'll leave it at that.

[JVS]

63. yup

[noahmijo]

11. Republicans have already convinced the public and the majority of DU that Dems are just as

responsible for this war.

What makes any draft supporter think that the public (and the majority of DU) will point their fingers at BushCo and put the blame solely on them...and worse expect them to bring everyone home and admit that we're not quite up to snuff when it comes to policing two groups who have been at eachother's throats for centuries.

[Danger Mouse]

14. The right has the media on their side.

Can you imagine it? Day after day, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, screaming about how the left wants to kill our children, etc...
It was the Dems that escalated Vietnam, to our shame. The Dems were responsible for Korea, too. Is this something we want on our souls as well?

[Scooter24]

68. America still greatly views this war as Bush/GOP's war...

Last November should have told you that. Democrats need to continue pushing bills like they are doing to show the public just where the Repubs stand on the issue. Come next year, hammer that message hard and unrelenting. I think Dean will do a good job of making sure each issue is framed and presented to the public in a way that would benefit the Dems in 2008.

[RC]

13. Recommend

[liberal N proud]

17. No way will the rich kids serve

No matter how difficult you make deferment or how small the loopholes, those who can pay their way out of serving.

[Danger Mouse]

22. Exactly.

They will find a way, and Congress will make sure that the way is there. After all, they wouldn't want THEIR children in the war. How many people in Congress actually have children in the military. Hint: it ain't many! They won't let their kids be drafted, either.

[SPKrazy]

26. It's a rotten idea to have a draft, duh

and that's the reason that it won't happen as well.

politicians are not suicidal when it comes to their money, i mean their careers (which is decidedly not what the founders wanted, careers and money, to be part of serving)

DU'ers who want a military draft are prolly old folk like me, only who are without a clue as to how asinine the idea is.

We need instead to take to the streets in massive numbers and stop the machine!

I don't think a draft is the answer to getting that to happen.

I also have no doubt that the draft would not ever pass, but pushing dem politicians to support it is a waste of time and a fabulous way to get people to vote Republican.


:hi:

[Danger Mouse]

30. Indeed.

And thanks for responding :hi:

[Akoto]

31. You and I have posted to each other on this before ...

So, I'll just reiterate my support of your sentiments. :) You and I would be among the first taken, and I sure as hell have no interest in serving the goals of those presently on high.

What surprises me most is how many former draftees doggedly support a new draft, and now of all times. I just can't imagine wishing that upon anyone, particularly when corruption and megalomania among the powers that be is so blatant.

[Danger Mouse]

33. I didn't want to say that myself, but I feel the same way.

I kinda thought that what we took as a nation from the Vietnam era is that we never wanted to see a tragedy like that happen again...
So why be so keen on it happening?

[Forkboy]

32. I understand the reasoning but I'm too old,and I wouldn't gamble with the lives of people

if I'm not going to be taking the same risks myself.

[Danger Mouse]

34. I think that's honorable of you.

There are many who do not feel that way. Heller, the individual who wrote an editorial in support of a draft that prompted me to write all of this, not only is too old for a draft, but doesn't have any children! Sigh...

[Forkboy]

42. It does make it an easier argument.

I don't have kids (that rushing sound you just heard was a collective "WHEW" from the rest of the world) but I do imagine what it must be like to have the draft hanging over your head if you're young enough.I wouldn't want older people with nothing to lose gambling with MY life.

Besides,I'm 39 and the way we're going they might just take me too. :scared:

[Danger Mouse]

46. Taking anyone they can get?

They'd have to be pretty hard up to take my fat ass :P

[Forkboy]

48. Don't assume anything with this murderous bunch running things.

They'll use you fat asses for shields or something. :freak:

[Danger Mouse]

54. LOL...I can just see it now.

'Okay, now you fatties will be our front lines. Your uniforms have these special red bullseyes on them. They're uhm...to show how special you really are. Your guns...well they're made out of wood. You won't be needing them. In fact, forget the wood. We're not wasting perfectly good wood on you guys. Anyway, good luck, meat shields...er...troops!'

[Forkboy]

57. LOL

:rofl:

Wait...maybe we shouldn't be laughing.Somewhere right now a Freeper troll is reading this and writing (in crayon) to his rep to have this idea implemented.

[Danger Mouse]

58. 'Misir Congriss Man,'

I gots me a reel gud idea. Lets taek all the fat peepel and dress em up reel purdy like n n...

ugh if i continue writing like this my head will explode...

[Forkboy]

60. you did that well

a little too well. ;)

[Danger Mouse]

61. Oh noes, I'm screwn!

They've uncovered my secret identity!! I'm really Elrond Freeper, champion of all that is right and all that is Right.
:D

[fizzgig]

35. that's how i see it: a gamble

and it frustrates me that there are people who are willing to gamble with my life to make a point.

thank you

[Danger Mouse]

37. it not just frustrates me...it saddens me.

sigh.

[fizzgig]

39. i was trying to be polite

it honestly pisses me off sometimes

[Danger Mouse]

41. Me too =)

Let's not mince words, love ;)

[Forkboy]

44. You're welcome

To be honest,when I first heard the draft mentioned a couple years ago I initially thought it was a good idea,for the reasons stated in the OP.I do think it would wake a lot of people up and cause things to reach a boiling point quicker.

But then I thought about how many will die before that boiling point gets reached.Changed my thinking pretty quickly after that.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Alright. Your points:

1) Yeah, Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what we think. So why protest? Why do anything? Actually, I think that's a good point. However, the draft isn't about convincing Bush of anything. It's about stripping away his Repub support. Right now it doesn't cost the Repubs much to keep supporting Bush. They need some more encouragement to quit.

2) That's right, the Repubs won't go for it. Thing is, unlike an impeachment, we won't need them. We can pass a draft bill ourselves without having that pesky 66 votes to convict thing. And if we pass it, and Bush (of course) vetoes it, we can start yelling about how he doesn't support the troops, and that he would rather keep overextending the troops already there in a losing situation than actually put forth the effort to make things better.

3) No argument there. I'm more concerned about the support from the 'base', who are suddenly going to have to actually really sacrifice, rather than buy another fucking ribbon.

4) In this case, the situation is entirely different than Vietnam. It would be a lot closer to bringing about the draft in 1972, as a comparison. The reason it would be effective just as a suggestion, is because we are close to getting somewhere on the situation now, and a draft would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. For comparison, there is no way I would have supported the idea of a draft in 2003.

5) The rich kids aren't the ones that will be the most effective in changing the course. It's the average American that we need to wake up from complacency. Face it, the average person hasn't been asked to sacrifice for this travesty other than buying a ribbon and paying more for gas. Look how pissed of people are just about the gas situation. Now imagine that their son or (especially) their daughter is suddenly going to be called up, and they'll go through the roof. That's why the Repubs will never let it get passed. But in not passing it, they will hang themselves like never before. If they defeat the measure, we can brand them as traitors, we can start questioning why it is that the most powerful nation in the world is being beaten back by a force of semi-literate peasants (as we have painted them in the media), we can start making the point that Bush has put us in a war which is a sham, since if it were a real situation we would be acting more seriously, etc.

[Danger Mouse]

40. Responding...

1.) Would this cause a split with Republicans from Bush? I think it would hurt the Democrats more than it would hurt the Republicans, personally.

2.) Think Bush would veto it? I doubt it. He could sign it, escalate the war, and then blame the Dems who passed the law for it. He has the media on his side, and can spin it any way he wants.

4.) We would be using lives to make a political statement. The lives of me, my friend, my relatives. The blood of more than a few of your fellow Duer's. It doesn't wash with me.

5.) Why would the Republicans fight it? The draft would cause massive outrage from the average American, and with the Dems being the one that pass it, who do you think will be blamed for it? The Republicans wouldn't need to fight it...it would do more damage to the Democratic party than they could've dreamed of doing themselves. The Republicans would be the ones all over the media...saying 'Are you angry about the draft??? The Dems are the ones who made it happen! Blame them!' Remember who the media works for.

[EstimatedProphet]

78. OK

1) I disagree. I think it could be seen in the same way as the war spending bill that went up last week. If Bush is so certain that this is the end-of-all struggle of civilizations as he says it is, why isn't he doing more about it? Why isn't the average citizen asked to do more about it? Congress passed the appropriations bill to make Bush look like an asshole, because they knew he would veto it just as he did. this would work the same way.

2) Yes, I do think he would veto it. What Bush is actually trying to do is set up Iraq to be run by a private contractor army. He can get away with that when the US forces are as few as they are now. No way will he be able to get away with it if the US commitment multiplies by a factor of 10. All his goals of privately running the middle east for the sake of American oil interests would go up in a big puff of smoke with a draft. Bush would never allow it to get in the way of what he's really after in Iraq, and he also knows that the only reason he still has any support with the people is because he hasn't asked them to sacrifice anything.

4) We would only be using lives to make a political statement if the draft bill were serious. Let me make myself clear here, because apparently I didn't earlier. I am in no way in favor of an actual draft. The sole reason I think the argument is being made is that I think it will show the administration for the liars they are. I don't want one more citizen killed in this war, period, and if I thought the draft was a serious proposal I would be totally against it - it is in no way the answer to the problem of being involved in an illegal war and occupation. But I think showing the people what Bush actually is is the only way to bring about our withdrawal from the war, and I can see a rationale behind the draft argument for helping that along, by pointing out what a hypocrite he is.

5) I'm not sure the Repubs would fight it. As I said above, I think Bush would fight it for the reasons I stated. I think in reality this would split the Congressional Repubs from Bush, because their argument has always been about how Dems are weak on defense. We show them that we are stronger and more serious on defense than they are, and they will have a hard time selling themselves as the real patriot party.

In any case, this is what I think the draft argument is about. I don't support it. I am just trying to explain the rationale of what I think is going on.

[Danger Mouse]

86. I see.

So it's in essence calling Bush's bluff. Putting something on the table that he's trying to avoid.
I understand it a little better now, but it still comes across to me as gambling with lives. The intent here is obviously that there would be no escalation, but it's still a gamble, and the lives of our generation are the chips.
Hm.

[pnwmom]

49. You haven't addressed the fact that it would be political SUICIDE

for the Dems to push through a draft, for whatever reason, no matter how idealistic and misguided.

You're deluding yourself if you think the public is going to call the Republicans traitors for not supporting a draft -- they don't support one now. And the public is fine with that.

But there WILL be a huge backlash against the Dems if they're stupid enough to start one up.

And I'll be there helping to lead the charge. No way you're sucking one of my kids into your plan.

[Danger Mouse]

55. I agree 100%

and would be fighting a draft any step of the way, and I would fight any dem that supported it, too.
In fact, it would be a cold day in hell before I voted for any dem that supported a draft.

[EstimatedProphet]

81. See the above response.

It's not my plan. I'm not even sure how I feel about it. I was just trying to explain what I think the rationale is behind it. However, I do think that it may not necessarily be political suicide, for the reasons I wrote.

[originalpckelly]

64. And what about the people who will die as a result of a draft that you support?

You will be just as morally responsible for their deaths as those who voted for this war in the first place.

You're treating human beings like play toys for politics, I cannot believe anyone who identifies as a Democrat would do such a thing. You really ought to be ashamed, being for the draft is not a valid point of view. This isn't some theoretical position that won't affect anyone, your position will get even more people killed, on top of the unbearable tragedy of those getting killed now.

Being against the war is not just being against Bush. I know at least I want these soldiers to stop suffering and to stop dying. I want their families to stop losing their soldiers.

This isn't just some damn debate, this is reality, and in reality you're arguing to send more people to die, not less. We want to stop these deaths, we want to do everything we can to reduce them and stop them, not add to the horror.

[fizzgig]

67. that's the part of this i find most disturbing and upsetting

that they are willing to sacrifice more lives to make a political point

[Danger Mouse]

71. Will not! It'll cause the war to end instantly!

And the Dems will win in '08 and the people will shower us with flowers and presents and little cakes, and unicorns will prance and sing and and...
sigh.
I guesss ome people don't mind sacrices, as long as it's someone else being sacrificed.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. By no means do I support a draft

I am simply talking about how I think it would play out. I DO NOT want a draft. If I thought it was a serious proposal I wouldn't support it at all. The argument I was trying to make is that I believe it would never come about anyway, and it could be used to show Bush for what he is.

[LeftHander]

80. Ding ding ding...!!! nt

[butterfly77]

85. Plus people are not like they were in the 50'60's or 70's

people are more informed and don't believe the lies, they have seen too much..

[Danger Mouse]

87. Then why did more than 70% of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11

for months and months after the IWR was passed? People are just as stupid and gullible as ever.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

43. The draft is coming, whether we want it or not.

With oil becoming more scarce, and our policy will be to fight to the drop for it...The draft will be coming...and no one will be exempt.

"But I'm a woman..." HERE'S YOUR M-16! THINK OF IT A GIRL POWER, GLORIA STEINEM!

"But I'm a consciencious objector" OBJECT THIS! GET IN THAT DARN TANK AND KILL SOME AY-RABS OR SOME CHINESE!

"I'm a pacifist" NOW YOU GET TO PACIFY, SOLDIER! PICK UP THAT RPG, SON!

"But I'm Gay!" DOESN'T MATTER FAIRIE-BOY! I HAVE AN F-35 WITH YOUR NAME ON IT...YOUR BOYFRIEND CAN BE YOUR WINGMAN!


When it comes to fighting for oil...EVERYBODY CAN BE ALL THAT THEY CAN BE!

[Danger Mouse]

47. It may come to that some day.

But if it does, that will be the decline and fall of the American Empire, crushed under the boot heel of the Chinese juggernaut.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

50. It will comes to that someday

It's already happening. One reason why I will not have children.

[Danger Mouse]

52. I admit that I am reluctant to have children myself.

Between global warming and possibility of a major world war in the not too distant future...what will be left for the children...my 10-year-old sister...?

[pnwmom]

51. Great post, Elrond. I'm not willing to sacrifice you, either. K & R.

[Danger Mouse]

53. Thanks =)

[DarkTirade]

56. I never really considered my flat feet to be a benefit until people

started talking about the draft. :\

[Danger Mouse]

59. Lovely thought, isn't it?

:P

[Sanctified]

62. My Position Has Always Been...

there is no need for a draft because if a war is Just there will never be a shortage of Volunteers. If the US needs to draft people into service then most likely the US is in the wrong.

[originalpckelly]

65. I think that's the absolute truth. No one is stupid, people don't want to die.

As long as people feel they are safer not fighting in a war, then that's probably true.

And if there's a way for us to be safe without fighting a war, then we ought to do it.

But if there isn't some day, then even draft dodgers will volunteer, because their safety will be with training and weapons.

That's not adding in the whole patriotism aspect, which is what I believe your post is more about.

[Danger Mouse]

70. If America was facing a true threat to its security, there would be no shortage of volunteers.

Indeed.

[TahitiNut]

90. Nonsense. Over 2/3rds of those who fought in WW2 were draftees.

:shrug:

[lovuian]

I don't believe in Drafts and under this government

They usually are treated like their lives are nothing


i wouldn't trust my child's life

A person needs trust in their government

and there is none

[Danger Mouse]

72. Putting more troops in the hands of our government?

Isn't that like handing more sheep to a starving wolf?

[TheBaldyMan]

66. A draft should only be instituted on military grounds,

Political manuoevreing would be the worst reason to bring one in. How do you explain to the families of the dead, wounded ans maimed that you decided to kill even more people for a political triangulation?

I think your basic premise is absurd and your comments are in very poor taste.

When the Iraq war was still being whipped up I said at the time that if the US was determined to go it alone both Britain and the US would have to introduce at least a limited form of conscription, today it is far too late for any such measure to affect the outcome of the war. To put it simply, the war was lost before it started. The armed forces should return home before they implode.

Any talk of ramping up the conflict is extreme folly. How many more men and women will die before Iraq and Afghanistan return to anything like a peaceful state? When neo-cons talk of widening the confict they betray their abject ignorance of military realities. When anyone suggests that the war should be continued a day longer than it must, they condemn even more people to death.

There have been thousands of Americans killed but there have been hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. In any terms this brutal war has been illegal from the start and disproportionate in the use of force. It is used as an excuse to erode hard won liberties. There is no valid reason to continue a day longer with the slaughter.

[Danger Mouse]

69. Huh?

You think my basic premise is absurd? Are you saying you're for a draft? From what you say in your post, it seems that we agree, not disagree.

[TheBaldyMan]

82. my point is - the decision should be made on military grounds not political

I also mean that applies for not bringing it in as well as bringing it in.

On that matter we totally disagree. I didn't misread your post, I still think it's tasteless in the light of the number of dead that are still stacking up.

To make things crystal clear - I am against instituting a draft now on military grounds - it's years too late for that to have any effect.

[Danger Mouse]

84. I see...you're saying that...

not bringing in a draft because of political reasons is tasteless?
I understand what you meant now.
I'm not saying that it's the reason we shouldn't have one. Not at all. I'm just pointing it out as part of the big picture...'it's a bad idea for all these reasons PLUS'...
Also, the fact that it would have a disastrous effect on the democrats is important to the issue of whether or not a draft will bring a swifter end to the war. I feel that the destructive impact it would have on the Democrats would actually have an adverse effect on ending the war sooner.
So distasteful as it is, I do think politics have a role in this issue.

[pnwmom]

74. I think you completely misunderstood his whole post.

He's as much against a draft for this war as you are.

[burrowowl]

73. When a professional army was

being discussed, many worried about about the possility of a coup d'etat by the army, e.g., the President telling them to round up the Congress. Now we have an even bigger worry Blackwater mercenaries et alii (who ordered them to NO and why?) forming a Republican Guard and since generals not loyal to Bu$hCo have resigned and .....
We need a draft and the outlawing of mercenary companies.

[Danger Mouse]

76. I agree that mercenaries are a concern.

Still, what else would a draft accomplish in the current situation?

[JVS]

75. hey

:thumbsup:

[LeftHander]

79. If we do a draft I am moving my daughter to Canada before she turns 18....

I'll leave...to save her life. She will not become cannon fodder for quarterly profits.

[Danger Mouse]

83. And orchestrated by Democrats, no less.

How would you feel about that?

[krkaufman]

89. Assuming they were doing it to alleviate the pressure on those currently serving ...

... to shore up the military, allow our National Guard troops to be brought home immediately, and to eliminate the private security forces in Iraq, I'd say they're doing the right thing. Blaming the Democrats for instituting the Draft would be like blaming the janitor for Johnny Doe's puke he has to mop up.

The issue of getting out of Iraq is becoming unrelated to the issue of a Draft. The US military is broken, as is our political system, in general. With 50% of the people voting, a Draft -- or mandatory Draft associated with any military actions -- would make decisions of war more pressing, and may get people paying attention to what matters.

[krkaufman]

88. One thing left out of your insightful analysis

You mention nothing of the troops currently in harm's way, ignoring the enormous sacrifice being made by them and their families, due to our collective election and reelection of Bush. If the American people voted for Bush and his policies, why must such a small number of the citizenry bear the cost of that choice?

[Danger Mouse]

91. I'm not 'ignoring' them at all.

I never voted for Bush or supported him. Why should myself and others of my generation that are on DU be sacrificed for the sake of those idiots who did support that putz. Actually, why should ANYONE be sacrificed for that fool's Neo Crusade? Unfortunately, many already have...and the Dems in Congress that allowed it shared a role in the guilt. I was agianst this war from the moment I heard about it being in the works. Knew it for what it was...a web of lies. What has been created by the American people through Bush is a disgusting mess that once was a country worth being proud of.
The only real way to clean up the mess is to impeach Bush and Cheney...if not removing them, it would hamstring them for their remaining years in office.
While I agree that in the future, a war of necessity in which the safety of America is truly at stake should entail a draft...I still disagree that it is a viable short-term solution, if our goal is a swift end to our occupation of Iraq.

[krkaufman]

92. What responsibility do Americans have to Iraqis, now?

And what increased death rate, should we pull out, would warrant our stepping in to protect them? (Generally, does America have any role in preventing genocide?)

[Danger Mouse]

93. That's a difficult issue.

We basically have created a gigantic mess of Iraq. The best course of action would probably be to split Iraq into separate countries. Otherwise, the violence isn't just going to go away...

[krkaufman]

94. Even after a segmentation...

... what responsibility does the US have if violence escalates? If the Shia majority opts to take vengeance for their years of oppression under Saddam? Do we just write the deaths off as civil war collateral damage, for which we have no responsibility? Scores are dying now, ostensibly our fault, but what if the killing escalates after a US pullout?

Do we call for protection of those in Kosovo and Darfur, mourn those killed in Rwanda, but feign deafness to those Iraqis?

[Danger Mouse]

95. I don't know. You make it sound like we're stuck with pretty much a permanant occupation.

Which is bad for us, bad for the Middle East, and really bad for Iraq.