If they do re-institute the draft there should be no college deferments , or deferments of any kind .

 

Correct.

Individuals choose it. We, as a country, need to ensure that those individuals have the support they need. These soldiers are coming back mentally and physically wrecked in record numbers. We need to support them and we've only got one place to go for that. The draft.

 

We're trying to win, right?

Our own president isn't supporting them at this point.

I think the redployment thing works both ways. While it can and does cause a lot of stress they have also had experience in those countries and the second deployment should be easier than the first. I have a son over there right now.

I have a few questions considering the 18 to 22 year old demographic.

 

1. What is the employment rate ?

2. How many of those jobs are full time and what is the wage?

3. What part of this group is in trouble with the law?

I have a few questions considering the 18 to 22 year old demographic.

 

1. What is the employment rate ?

2. How many of those jobs are full time and what is the wage?

3. What part of this group is in trouble with the law?

 

For clarification purposes, why are these questions being posed?

So you're willing to let your country's leaders send young men and women into war but if it costs too much and hurts the deficit or the economy then you're against them spending more money on the troops? You're a little vague in your statement so I want to make sure I understand correctly.

 

I'll also challenge you to back up your point that this war and WWII are different somehow in regards to the issue of the draft.

 

I never said I'm against spending money on the troops. Don't put words in my mouth. I see no point in wasting money unnecessarily to train new soldiers when we've already got trained experienced ones that are going to be just as effective. Since you've provided no evidence to the contrary, I have to assume those being redeployed are every bit as effective as new soldiers would be.

 

As to your second point, are you serious? You see no differences in this war and WWII? If that's the case, there is no point continuing this discussion.

So you're willing to let your country's leaders send young men and women into war but if it costs too much and hurts the deficit or the economy then you're against them spending more money on the troops? You're a little vague in your statement so I want to make sure I understand correctly.

 

I'll also challenge you to back up your point that this war and WWII are different somehow in regards to the issue of the draft.

 

 

Outside of the fact that WWII was an officially declared war and this one is not there are a number of other things that we need to take into account when differentiating the two conflicts.

 

1) We are not at total mobilization. We have not been since the end of WWII. As such there has been no rationing, no attempts to garner additional funding via the sale of bonds and we haven't geared out industries to a war time footing.

 

2) This type of conflict cannot be won simply by overwhelming numbers. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to have the appropriate number of personnel for any given military operation and I feel that the military should have the unflagging support of the United States Government in regards to its equipment and personnel requests. That said this particular type of conflict, especially in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan is a tricky situation. Clearly more troops are needed there but at the same time you need experienced troops and a clear cut strategy to eradicate any insurgency. Any form of conscription (which is all a draft really is, let's be honest) could lead to serious problems and greater casualty rates. Especially if those in uniform did not volunteer to begin with.

 

3) While the threat of any terrorist organization is indeed great, the fact of the matter is that they are not near the threat that Japan was or that Germany was in WWII. While it is true that the terrorists have managed to strike U.S. soil which, outside of one or two "balloon bombs" by the Japanese, neither of the great Axis powers managed to do. That war was one of national survival. While I do agree that terrorists are a threat to our security they do not have the resources necessary to topple this country.

 

 

Just throwing that out there for the differences in this conflict and World War II.

I never said I'm against spending money on the troops. Don't put words in my mouth. I see no point in wasting money unnecessarily to train new soldiers when we've already got trained experienced ones that are going to be just as effective. Since you've provided no evidence to the contrary, I have to assume those being redeployed are every bit as effective as new soldiers would be.

 

As to your second point, are you serious? You see no differences in this war and WWII? If that's the case, there is no point continuing this discussion.

 

"Just as effective" is measured how exactly? Are you telling me the 3 and 4 timers , while skilled, are not mentally worn down? Isn't that just as bad?

Edited November 6, 200916 yr by Clyde

Outside of the fact that WWII was an officially declared war and this one is not there are a number of other things that we need to take into account when differentiating the two conflicts.

 

1) We are not at total mobilization. We have not been since the end of WWII. As such there has been no rationing, no attempts to garner additional funding via the sale of bonds and we haven't geared out industries to a war time footing.

 

2) This type of conflict cannot be won simply by overwhelming numbers. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to have the appropriate number of personnel for any given military operation and I feel that the military should have the unflagging support of the United States Government in regards to its equipment and personnel requests. That said this particular type of conflict, especially in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan is a tricky situation. Clearly more troops are needed there but at the same time you need experienced troops and a clear cut strategy to eradicate any insurgency. Any form of conscription (which is all a draft really is, let's be honest) could lead to serious problems and greater casualty rates. Especially if those in uniform did not volunteer to begin with.

 

3) While the threat of any terrorist organization is indeed great, the fact of the matter is that they are not near the threat that Japan was or that Germany was in WWII. While it is true that the terrorists have managed to strike U.S. soil which, outside of one or two "balloon bombs" by the Japanese, neither of the great Axis powers managed to do. That war was one of national survival. While I do agree that terrorists are a threat to our security they do not have the resources necessary to topple this country.

 

 

Just throwing that out there for the differences in this conflict and World War II.

 

Nice work and interesting points.

 

My questioning of the comparison was specific to the need for the draft.

 

I do not question that this is different in regards to "survival." I do question the thinking that "newbies" or , heck, just having enough to not have to send troops 3 and 4 times (say enough to only need them twice) is not a valid strategy. I do not buy that having enough to only send the troops twice will somehow weaken the attack. To believe so tells me that one believes our training methods are inadequate.

 

Do we as a country believe that only those that chose to enlist have the burden of putting (literally) skin in the game? If you and I believe in this cause and OK the use of our men and women shouldn't we then OK the use of the draft to ensure that all of us , directly or indirectly, have skin in the game?

I just talked to my son day before yesterday, and he was telling me some rockets had been shot into the base, and had missed their target. He and his men went to check it out and found out a newbie had been so scared by the attack that he turned and ran into the outside of a building breaking his leg. As he and his men continued to look around several were telling them to find cover. He told them it was over that's all they had at this point, and he was right. I think for the most part the veterans are better equipped mentally to handle it. While I'm not happy in his 6 years this is his second tour of Iraq, Afganastan once and Korea once. He actually volunteered for this assignment. I agree we need to take better care of them when they come home. He volunteered for the Army and most of the time really likes it. I would much rather have people serving this country that want to, than a bunch of draftees who are only ther because they have to be.

I would much rather have people serving this country that want to, than a bunch of draftees who are only ther because they have to be.

 

Obviously.

 

However, that's not always possible, right?

I never said I'm against spending money on the troops. Don't put words in my mouth. I see no point in wasting money unnecessarily to train new soldiers when we've already got trained experienced ones that are going to be just as effective. Since you've provided no evidence to the contrary, I have to assume those being redeployed are every bit as effective as new soldiers would be.

 

As to your second point, are you serious? You see no differences in this war and WWII? If that's the case, there is no point continuing this discussion.

 

I would think the events at Fort Hood yesterday provide pretty strong evidence that multiple deployments are unhealthy.

^ The guy that did it hadn't been deployed yet.

I would think the events at Fort Hood yesterday provide pretty strong evidence that multiple deployments are unhealthy.

 

Actually it's a pretty good reason that we should NOT reinstate the draft and send people that are unwilling to go.

 

As pigman mentioned, he had not gone yet and wasn't too excited about the idea.

I would think the events at Fort Hood yesterday provide pretty strong evidence that multiple deployments are unhealthy.

This was to be his first deployment. The guy was sick Muslim extremest, plain and simple.