Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/6/2004 10:36:59 PM EST
I'm curious what are the opinions on the draft among ARFCOMERs?

There was a debate in my American Studies class on Bush Vs. Kerry, and alot of Bush haters (go figure, its college) where spouting out about the Iraqi war. They shut up quick when the Instructor informed them that Kerry wants a draft if elected and isnt anti-war at all.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:38:26 PM EST
We dont need a draft.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:42:33 PM EST
In general being 22 it could affect me, but if it was needed Id be for it
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:45:46 PM EST
No draft. We have enough true warriors to get the job done anyplace we need them. OoohRa!

The draft scare has been presented and provided by your local Democratic party. Lets vote a few more out.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:46:16 PM EST
This has been beaten to death.

There is no draft.

The only bills seeking to renew the draft have been introduced by Democrats.

Enough already.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:47:00 PM EST
It is not needed and it severely lowers troop morale.

I'm against it for those reasons, however if it is instated and I am called forth, I will proudly go.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:54:26 PM EST
Its no good. The military shouldnt become a babysitting camp. Right now an all volunteer force is the most effective.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:56:54 PM EST
Opinions on draft:


I think that a cold draft sucks in the winter, because it will invariably find me when I am getting out of the shower, or go right up my pantleg should I be clothed.

On the other hand, a cold draft beer is always good. I will take a St. Pauli's Girl please.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:59:24 PM EST
I don't like it in the winter because I get cold and it costs more money to heat my home.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 11:01:52 PM EST
The proposed bill was brought to vote recently because of the DNC bullshit and was smashed 400 something to 2.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 11:07:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 11:08:21 PM EST by KA3B]
One of the dummycunts draft bills was shot down in Congress.
Tell your pro kerry classmates to go suck a big cock.


House shoots down draft proposal
Twin bill on draft likely to die when sponsor retires

The United States House of Representatives voted 402-2 on Tuesday to defeat a bill aimed to revive mandatory conscription.

"This overwhelming defeat should put an end to the rumors and other irresponsible reports of an impending draft," stated House Republican Conference Secretary John T. Doolittle (R-CA), who has served in the House of Representatives since 1991, in a subsequent press release.
Being an all-volunteer military means our armed forces are the most skilled and advanced in the world, stated Doolittle.

"We have no intention of allowing party politics to rob our forces of their greatest weapon - good old fashioned determination and grit," he said. "When you look at the driving force behind this bill, it's clear that the draft is not a Republican-driven idea but rather an election-year Democrat scare tactic."

HR 163, sponsored by Democrat Representative Charles Rangel, was actually introduced to the House of Representatives more than a year and a half ago. It would have initiated the Universal National Service Act of 2003.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who sponsored the House bill, reportedly to make military service more equitable, didn't vote for his own bill.

The bill was intended to frighten politicians in Washington, said cosponsor Rep. Fortney Pete Stark of California.

On January 8, 2003, Stark said his support for the Universal National Service Act of 2003 was intended to give his fellow representatives some pause before voting to approve the Iraq war resolution.

"I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues," he said to the House. "It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one - only one - has a child in active military service."

It was also meant to remind members of the Senate and House the burden of war "weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor, the disadvantaged and minority populations," said Stark.

"Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some," he said. "But it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war."

Stark was the only cosponsor of the Bill who voted to approve it on Tuesday.
Although both presidential candidates have voiced their opposition to bringing back the draft, the existence of the now-failed HR 163, along with an identical bill in the Senate, has fueled speculation on the matter.

Senate bill 89, authored by soon-to-retire Sen. Ernest Hollins (D-SC), seeks exactly the same thing as its House counterpart did and still languishes in the Committee on Armed Forces.

Despite the landslide 402-2 vote in the House of Representatives defeating a bill that would have made it mandatory for all young people ages 18 to 26 to commit two years of military service, the matter is not completely resolved.

Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., proposed the bill in January 2003 in conjunction with the House bill proposed by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

"He proposed it because he truly does believe that a draft could help our country if it was reinstated," said Hollings' spokeswoman Jocelyn Hudson.

However, because Hollings is retiring after the November elections, the Senate bill is unlikely to reach a hearing.
"It will die when he retires, so there's no possibility that it will be passed under his name," Hudson said.


The Senate bill has less than a month to survive in committee and will then retire along with its author. If the Senate votes in any way similar to the House of Representatives, Hollings' bill has little chance.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:22:20 AM EST
If and when we ever get to that point, we need to make sure we don't flood the military with a lot of malcontents suitable for painting rocks or similar duties.

Any draft at this point would need to have almost all exemptions eliminated. Married, kids, college student too bad, your eligible. Could have the positive social effect of eliminating the proliferation of marriages of convenience, useless degrees and majors prevalent in the 60's and 70's.

The military needs a lot of folks that are willing to stick around for technical training and jobs that weren't the majority of jobs in the military in the past.

I think we are going to see the development of higer tech weapons that will mosr than compensate for needing tremendous numbers of grunts. We'll still need grunts but not the numbers.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:28:55 AM EST
It's not needed.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:30:54 AM EST
There should not be a draft as long as Im still willing to take the place of a kid...


Im more than willing if it comes down to that!..
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:35:25 AM EST
Yes to a draft.

With no excemptions other than health.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:53:00 AM EST
There is currently no need for one. As things stand, there won't be one. Should the world erupt and we have to have one, then yes, I'll be all for it then. But we simply don't need a draft now. Not at all.

Folks, if we do find ourselves short on troops, how many would we really need? Back in the early 90's, we cut 8 divisions out of our army. Now we have 10 left. Keep in mind that we were able to keep 18 full divisions staffed by volunteers in the 1980's. I can't ever see us needing more than 18 divisions again unless WWIII breaks out.

If we are short on troops, what we need to do is bring back some of the divisions that were inactivated and start staffing them with volunteers. It would take a few years to get the units up to full strength obviously, but better late than never. If we could produce enough volunteers to man those extra units in the 80's, we can still do it today. That's why I think it was a mistake to cut our forces nearly in half to start with. Had we not done that, we'd be in great shape right now. And it seems we aren't that bad off anyway.

But unless we find ourselves in a WWIII type situation, I doubt we ever see a draft. If we do, it'll be in very limited numbers. Why? This isn't the 1940's or 1950's. Having to equip a large number of units is too expensive. We don't simply toss em a rifle, some ammo and a uniform and march them off to war anymore. Just think of how much it would cost to equip a modern soldier with NVG's, K-Pot, Interceptor vest, LBV or LBE, etc. And think of the sophistication of the weapons themselves. We don't need as many people today because the stuff they use makes them 10x as capable as they were 30 years ago. We won't have a draft because we can't afford to equip a significantly greater number of troops with modern tools of the trade. And if we don't take a high number of new troops, it seems pointless to start a draft because we can get the small number we do need by simply turning up the heat on recruiting.

Again, there will no draft unless WWIII breaks out.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:13:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 5:18:41 AM EST by scrum]
Do a Peace Corps draft so the kooks don't get warrior training. Draft all the liberal schmucks who think America stinks and send them somewhere that really does and they'll come back having had to work to live and appreciating freedom's cost a little more.

ETA: A draft under the current conflict scenario won't answer the problem of not having enough good, dedicatedgood recruits, it will just add to the number who complain about only wanting the GI bill and crying that they want to go home. A draft sounds like an easy way to reduce the tour time in the sandbox for the dedicated professionals that are over there, but all it would do is use up resources here that quite frankly would be better spent on our people who go in harms way willingly and with honor.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:18:12 AM EST
As a former Army NCO I am vehemently opposed to a draft or required military service of any type. Leaders (as well as soldiers) have the already difficult task of trying to keep morale high, even in the rear during peace time. A soldier with low morale is like a cancer that spreads very quickly. I can't imagine that soldiers drafted into an all volunteer force, particulary those who are opposed to the war, would have anything other than extremely low morale.

Just my $.02
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:26:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
If and when we ever get to that point, we need to make sure we don't flood the military with a lot of malcontents suitable for painting rocks or similar duties.

Any draft at this point would need to have almost all exemptions eliminated. Married, kids, college student too bad, your eligible. Could have the positive social effect of eliminating the proliferation of marriages of convenience, useless degrees and majors prevalent in the 60's and 70's.

The military needs a lot of folks that are willing to stick around for technical training and jobs that weren't the majority of jobs in the military in the past.

I think we are going to see the development of higer tech weapons that will mosr than compensate for needing tremendous numbers of grunts. We'll still need grunts but not the numbers.




Actually, you're exactly backwards. The trend towards higher tech stuff is REDUCING the need for maintenance technicians and operators in most fields. The exception is the UAV/ RPV communities where technology is standing up whole new career fields.

The increased technology will make the infantryman more lethal, and the projected primary missions create a need for more grunts and MPs.

Expect a future Army to have a much higher tooth to tail ratio, expect a lot of the support and technical work done by soldiers in the past to be contracted out to civilians and expect those technicians who remain to b e tasked with maintaing a secondary skill set as basic infantrymen.

The projected future military will be smaller, more flexible, more mobile more lethal, much faster and possesed of c5 capabilities that enable them to trounce larger enemies.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:27:45 AM EST
Don't need it.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:28:49 AM EST
we'd be better off giving a 20% pay raise to the military and adding 200,000 grunts to the army.

Retention and high deployment times are the main problems. No need for a draft.

It would be nice to see some fucking congressmen encourage their children to enlist. Thats asking for too much apparently.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:42:18 AM EST
They wouldn't need a draft if they would just spend the extra money it would take on improving the life of our servicemen and women. They need to start paying them better, looking after their records and helping them with their problems. Without people willing to join the military, we'd be screwed. When the pay scale is so low that a sergeant with a family qualifies for food stamps or other assistance, then something is seriously wrong. They lose their pay record, leave them broke in some forgotten corner of the world, ignore their family problems and throw them out when their health is ruined. We need a total overhaul of their treatment.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:44:49 AM EST
We don't need it.
We had more active duty divisions before Klinton and we can reconstitute them, again, with volunteers. It will take time, though.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:45:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Stillie:
As a former Army NCO I am vehemently opposed to a draft or required military service of any type. Leaders (as well as soldiers) have the already difficult task of trying to keep morale high, even in the rear during peace time. A soldier with low morale is like a cancer that spreads very quickly. I can't imagine that soldiers drafted into an all volunteer force, particulary those who are opposed to the war, would have anything other than extremely low morale.

Just my $.02



I completely agree with this assessment. As a Sergeant of Marines, I witnessed this during Desert Storm with activated reserves. People who had volunteered in the first place. I wouldn't even want to think about the degradation to our proficiency as a military institution the draft would cause.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:53:17 AM EST
It is just a cruel, political stunt by the democrats which should not be dignified by an answer.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:07:42 AM EST
More DNC lies and smear tactics.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:54:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
One of the dummycunts draft bills was shot down in Congress.
Tell your pro kerry classmates to go suck a big cock.


House shoots down draft proposal
Twin bill on draft likely to die when sponsor retires

The United States House of Representatives voted 402-2 on Tuesday to defeat a bill aimed to revive mandatory conscription.

"This overwhelming defeat should put an end to the rumors and other irresponsible reports of an impending draft," stated House Republican Conference Secretary John T. Doolittle (R-CA), who has served in the House of Representatives since 1991, in a subsequent press release.
Being an all-volunteer military means our armed forces are the most skilled and advanced in the world, stated Doolittle.

"We have no intention of allowing party politics to rob our forces of their greatest weapon - good old fashioned determination and grit," he said. "When you look at the driving force behind this bill, it's clear that the draft is not a Republican-driven idea but rather an election-year Democrat scare tactic."

HR 163, sponsored by Democrat Representative Charles Rangel, was actually introduced to the House of Representatives more than a year and a half ago. It would have initiated the Universal National Service Act of 2003.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who sponsored the House bill, reportedly to make military service more equitable, didn't vote for his own bill.

The bill was intended to frighten politicians in Washington, said cosponsor Rep. Fortney Pete Stark of California.

On January 8, 2003, Stark said his support for the Universal National Service Act of 2003 was intended to give his fellow representatives some pause before voting to approve the Iraq war resolution.

"I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues," he said to the House. "It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one - only one - has a child in active military service."

It was also meant to remind members of the Senate and House the burden of war "weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor, the disadvantaged and minority populations," said Stark.

"Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some," he said. "But it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war."

Stark was the only cosponsor of the Bill who voted to approve it on Tuesday.
Although both presidential candidates have voiced their opposition to bringing back the draft, the existence of the now-failed HR 163, along with an identical bill in the Senate, has fueled speculation on the matter.

Senate bill 89, authored by soon-to-retire Sen. Ernest Hollins (D-SC), seeks exactly the same thing as its House counterpart did and still languishes in the Committee on Armed Forces.

Despite the landslide 402-2 vote in the House of Representatives defeating a bill that would have made it mandatory for all young people ages 18 to 26 to commit two years of military service, the matter is not completely resolved.

Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., proposed the bill in January 2003 in conjunction with the House bill proposed by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

"He proposed it because he truly does believe that a draft could help our country if it was reinstated," said Hollings' spokeswoman Jocelyn Hudson.

However, because Hollings is retiring after the November elections, the Senate bill is unlikely to reach a hearing.
"It will die when he retires, so there's no possibility that it will be passed under his name," Hudson said.


The Senate bill has less than a month to survive in committee and will then retire along with its author. If the Senate votes in any way similar to the House of Representatives, Hollings' bill has little chance.



Do you have the link? I want to print it out from the source.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:03:53 AM EST
A professional army will always be better than a conscripted army.

No draft.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 9:42:23 AM EST
I don't care to fight along side someone that didn't volunteer to do it.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 9:54:34 AM EST
keep volunteer but get better incentives. especialy specops they only make mabey 50K a year no wonder they cant retain them when there are civie contractors with mil training making 3 4 5 times as much

my sign on bonus was only 5K for my MOS Pay kinda sucks for the job I did in the sand box
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:36:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
I'm curious what are the opinions on the draft among ARFCOMERs?




My opinion is that it's still too warm here in Arizona for it to be considered drafty.


Maybe in January it might get drafty at 3 am, but it's not something that I'll worry about. I'll just toss an extra blanket on the bed.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:40:04 AM EST
You could just Google it.
You'll get it.

http://www.paradisepost.com/Stories/0,1413,292~30282~2451015,00.html

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-07-04tdc/10-07-04dnews-02.asp


Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
Do you have the link? I want to print it out from the source.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:44:14 AM EST

I think your American Studies instructor is worng. I heard Kerry say that he is not for the draft. In fact there are virtually no politicians who would vote for a draft at this point, although the dishonest left has tried to pin a future draft on President Bush.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:44:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
Yes to a draft.

With no excemptions other than health.



+1 EVERYONE needs to serve their country in one way or another. Freedom isn't free.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:44:41 AM EST
Seriously, jeeper21. Consider yourself lucky that you have a college professor of American Studies (which sounds like a liberal refuge if ever there was one) who knows the score and told the liberal whiners in your class to STFU.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:52:08 AM EST
I think it is a bad idea. The draft during Vietnam put a large number of hippies and malcontents into the Army. Upon returning, they hated the military enough to do things like organizing the Winter Soldier tribunals, causing damage to all Vietnam vetrans that still hasn't been repaired 30 years later.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:52:41 AM EST
On Draft in general: I don't think we need a draft for the types of wars we fight now. A volunteer, well paid, highly professional army (like we have) does the job much better. I think we should allways be ready to have a draft, registered etc, in case a MUCH larger war causes us to need one. The only countries I could imagine us needing a draft to conquer would be China or Russia.

On the "draft scare": All I can say is that the Dem tricks and misinformation are really eginning to get to me. I had a student ask me about it, I almost lost my cool. Not the students fault, its the information systems fault.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 10:58:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 10:58:59 AM EST by LWilde]
How about this: IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!

I really wish folks would stop getting their skivs in a bunch...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:02:03 AM EST
Mandantory service for 3 years for every person over the age of 18 (with extensions for completion of high school). They get to pick whether they want to join the service, peace corps, etc.

I believe that if things keep going the way they are going, you will see the beginnings of a draft in 18 to 24 months. Sooner if we get a significant flare-up in another part of the world.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:09:52 AM EST
Prefer bottled beer myself
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:30:55 AM EST
I like a cold draft beer with a big warm bun and a huge hunk of meat....with lettuce and tomato Heinz 57 and French fried potatoes and a Big kosher pickle.....

If they want me to shoot terrorists all they have to do is ask, screw a draft. It ain't gonna fly.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:38:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 5:40:13 PM EST by Jeeper21]

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
I think your American Studies instructor is worng. I heard Kerry say that he is not for the draft. In fact there are virtually no politicians who would vote for a draft at this point, although the dishonest left has tried to pin a future draft on President Bush.



Someone brought that up, but he clarafied that Kerry is not calling it a draft, the draft is merely attached to what Kerry calls "National Service" which he wants to implement. The instructor also said that the only politicians who have proposed or supported drafts were are all Democrat.

He goes on to say to the anti-war Bush haters that "If you want to vote for the anti-war candidate, vote for Nader, he is the ONLY candidate against war right now, Kerry ISNT against the war! All he says is that he will do everything Bush would have done, but better, and Kerry still doesnt say what better is!" Whinney liberals say they'll waste their vote, and that they want to send Bush a message by voting for Kerry. Which makes no sense at all after the good Dr. just got done explaining to them that Kerry IS NOT ANTI-WAR. Its funny actually. The Instructor says "its not about being anti-war, these people just hate Bush. They dont care about the Iraqi war, they just want Bush out. Simple as that!"

I wish all of ARFCOM could enjoy the silliness of some of these students mis-information, but there are times when I just want to yell STFU to some of these students. Unfortunately, tape recordings are not allowed for this class. Hopefully, after this class there will be less stupid people, but by the looks of it, those who came liberal will still be liberal afterwards.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:40:44 PM EST
Selective service is a good thing. Deport anyone who doesn't want to do it. Thet way the granola has a choice, register or leave...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:40:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Stillie:
As a former Army NCO I am vehemently opposed to a draft or required military service of any type. Leaders (as well as soldiers) have the already difficult task of trying to keep morale high, even in the rear during peace time. A soldier with low morale is like a cancer that spreads very quickly. I can't imagine that soldiers drafted into an all volunteer force, particulary those who are opposed to the war, would have anything other than extremely low morale.

Just my $.02



+1
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:44:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wolf_Warrior:
Mandantory service for 3 years for every person over the age of 18 (with extensions for completion of high school). They get to pick whether they want to join the service, peace corps, etc.

I believe that if things keep going the way they are going, you will see the beginnings of a draft in 18 to 24 months. Sooner if we get a significant flare-up in another part of the world.




What way we are going? Recruiting and retention are pretty much on target, the Navy has so many damm people its getting rid of some.

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 4:57:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

What way we are going? Recruiting and retention are pretty much on target, the Navy has so many damm people its getting rid of some.




Well, it is pretty clear that we could use a few more folks in Iraq. Those who are there need rotation. The Reserves are pretty tapped out. Recruiting and retention seem to be holding up for now so that's good but we still have commitments in other places in the World -- Bosnia, Korea, to name a couple. Don't forget Afghanistan. Do we have enough folks there to do the job?

We also still have real, live "hot spots" that could flare up at any moment.

As I've said before, the problem is -- and has been -- the Manpower end strength limitation. We keep making global commitments (before Iraq) without sufficiently increasing the authorized end strength to service those commitments. Sure we are filling the billets but we don't have enough authorized billets.

The question, therefore, is not whether we are filling the billets that we have. Rather, the question is how many billets do we actually need for current operations and can we fill those billets without a draft? I think that the answer to that is "probably yes" for now.

However, IF the operational requirements keep increasing at the current rate, I think that we will get close to the "tipping point" in the 18 to 24 month period. If Iran, Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, Pakistan-India, Tiwan-China, or any number of other places, flare up, we will have to increase authorized end strength quickly. Can we fill those billets without a draft?

The Government has to be thinking about this. The days are gone where we can wait until something happens and simply hand our citizen soldiers a weapon and send them forth. There is a training cycle that has to be considered.

Maybe you are right. Maybe there are enough young people in the U.S. to fill all the billets that we need. We do have a much larger population than we had in the '60s. However, there are issues here and I think that simply dismissing talk of the draft as "propoganda for campaign purposes" tends to gloss over and hide those issues.
Top Top