Why we need the Draft Back!

I am ashamed to admit I have been living my life in ignorance of the WWII draft. When I was heading out for my last tour in Vietnam, I mentioned to my grandfather that half my platoon were draftees. He went into a long diatribe about how they didn't need a draft to serve in WWII, that they had to put in selective service to handle all the volunteers, and how they had a year and a half worth of volunteers to cram the training facilities on the first day after Pearl, and how the kids of today (being 1971 at the time) were too damned spoiled to understand honor and service, and if they weren't so spoiled they wouldn't need a draft.

We talked about it for literally hours. Being it was an important day in my life, I have never forgotten what was said. Being it was the last time I saw my grandfather also made it memorable. And I took him at his word, and did not question it until this thread forced me to look at reality.

I apologize for my ignorance.

But I still oppose a draft. And I will always oppose a draft.

You may have recalled the conversation incorrectly:


Q. Was there a draft in World War 2?

A. All combatants used the draft in WWII, and before.

The USA started its first peace time draft in its history as a nation ( a bill that passed Congress by just one vote ), just months prior to Pearl Harbor. Like many nations, the USA would draft just about anyone. A few exemptions were made for health issues (ex: Frank Sinatra was exempt due to flat feet, meaning he couldn't march long distances) or criminal background. One of my uncles was exempt for a time due to his job in a 'critical' industry ( he worked on a dairy farm ) but later in the war, 1944, he too was drafted. Interestingly, the Navy and Army drafted freely during the war, but the Marine corp. refused to draft and used entirely volunteers, as they had during their entire history. Late in the war, needing men for a possible invasion of Japan, the Marines did draft for a short time, the marines also drafted for Vietnam.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_there_a_draft_in_World_War_2

Although I'm sure your grandfather was correct about the huge number of volunteers after Pearl.

I think a draft is a good idea. I think mandatory service for everyone would be even better.
 
Like how? They already serve at republican conventions and such. ;)

I did not mention retards, just mentally ill. Not quite the same thing.

You mean Democrat conventions?

633553012233334633-fanswhatwouldapoliticalconventionbewithoutthem.jpg


633690470254095260-ignoranceitsnotjustblissanymoreitspolicy.jpg


633692757870301410-alittlekiss.jpg


Sick folks would be exempt or course.
 
You may have recalled the conversation incorrectly:


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_there_a_draft_in_World_War_2

Although I'm sure your grandfather was correct about the huge number of volunteers after Pearl.

I think a draft is a good idea. I think mandatory service for everyone would be even better.
I recall the conversation correctly. But I also know that granddad had a "unique" way of looking at things. Seems that includes his recollection of history.

Try being in charge of a platoon, more than half of which are conscripts who do not want to be there, some who do not even believe in the necessity of the military, let alone their personal involvement, and take that platoon into combat. Then tell me again that a draft is a good idea.

I can tell you from experience, given the exact same enemy force in the exact same combat situation, you would be safer and have a better chance of a successful mission if you have a troop of ten men who volunteered to be there and understand why they are there, than having 30 men with half or more nursing conscript syndrome. Especially if the conditions include involvement in an unpopular war.

There is a huge difference between now and WWII. First, nationalism was not automatically a dirty word as it seems to be today. Second, the threat of the axis powers was recognized even by the most adamant of pacifists. Third, military service was not looked down on as something only people incompetent to do anything else get involved in. With those factors, even in the case of people who did not volunteer, there were few people who did not accept the necessity. And after Pearl there were few who would not have directly volunteered if they had not been told to go home and wait for their number to be called. There simply is not the level of personal dedication to the security of the nation today as was present in 1940.

Another point: many nations who are potential opponents have had 100% mandatory service. The armies built from total conscript systems are cannon fodder. The very few exceptions to that rule -such as Israel- are due to unique circumstances that we will never face.
 
Last edited:
We did have an all volunteer force during WWII. The Selective Service was instated to handle the massive influx of volunteers that occurred after the attack on Pearl Harbor. There were far too many people for the training facilities to handle so most were told to go home and wait for their numbers to be called.

You totalitarian fucks don't know shit about what it means to fight with men who don't want to be there. A soldier is better off with an empty foxhole next to them than one filled by an involuntary soldier. I had to deal with conscript in Vietnam. I would have rather had 10 genuine volunteers than the 40 draftees they put me in charge of.

As for the necessity for stop loss, you only need go back as far as 1993 to find the reason for it. That was when the democrats gutted the military, cutting 20% full time forces personnel and an unbelievable 38% ready reserve personnel. THERE is the reason for your stop loss requirements now. Because the democrats were so convinced we'd never again need all those people in the military. Their actions cut short innumerable military careers. What do you do with a soldier whose battalion no longer exists except send them home? Then when we need them, the numbers are not there.

Oh, and let's also not mention how the democrats have demonized the war. Then they sit there wondering why recruiting is so poor, so they want to FORCE people to attend the war they CLAIMED they would get us out of.




Your history is quite unique, it certainly isn't from memory. They were turning volunteers away from Korea and Viet Nam also? The draft was a draft and not a lotto to enlist anxious volunteers for WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. It would be a damn good thing for the country if we had one now too.
Don't look now but the term "Peace Dividend" came from someone you might remember named GHW Bush. Shocking!
 
Your history is quite unique, it certainly isn't from memory. They were turning volunteers away from Korea and Viet Nam also? The draft was a draft and not a lotto to enlist anxious volunteers for WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. It would be a damn good thing for the country if we had one now too.
Don't look now but the term "Peace Dividend" came from someone you might remember named GHW Bush. Shocking!
Where the fuck did you get the idea I said there were too many volunteers for Vietnam or Korea? WWII was another matter, and in the months following the attack on Pearl, there were, indeed, far too many volunteers for the training centers to handle. They were drafting people before then, as I have admitted my error on that issue, but afterward the lottery was more to keep order on the volunteerism than to pull reluctant people in.

My experience with conscript soldiers in Vietnam was very real, and is a prime reason I am against any draft. I am also against a draft for the simple and plain reason that it violates the very principles of liberty on which this nation is founded, and which military service is mandated to protect.

And, BTW, since you clearly did not bother reading the whole thread before proclaiming your lack of reading comprehension before all, I also recanted my claim about WWII and apologized for my ignorance of the 1940 draft.

As for Bush 41's "peace dividend" I already mentioned that he cut way back on the build up planned and started by Reagan. But like all politicians, he played liars poker with the figures. He decreased the rate of increase, and called it a cutback. He also got caught at it, which was a minor factor in his losing his bid for a second term.
 
Have you ever noticed, it is always liberal demofucks who are the ones going on about a draft? It's easy to see why they want one... it makes protesting wars so much easier! It lends credibility to all their arguments about the morality of forcing someone to go off and die in war they didn't support. When they become frustrated that war might be becoming more popular than anti-war, they start 'wishfully thinking' about a draft. This leads to seemingly well-thought out posts to justify the idea to others. If they could just convince enough of us to do it, they would have it made in the shade, as war protesters go.

I don't need to add to the exemplary list of arguments against a draft made in this thread, they speak for themselves, and I can't add a thing to what has already been said. We are surprisingly, not far off of recruiting goals, and considering the 'cold shoulder' recruiters are getting from the academia elite leftists, who run the universities... I would say, that is sufficient. I personally know several young people, who chose the Armed Forces after high school. I highly resent the insinuation that they were poor or had no other option available to them. They examined all the options, and decided on joining the military. In all fairness, signalman... the current signing bonuses and incentives are much greater than during your era. This is the amazing aspect to an all-volunteer army, it allows the government to offer incentives and pay soldiers closer to what they are worth.

I am particularly proud of my niece, who seemed to be the biggest goofball growing up... I never dreamed she would make the choice to join the Army. When she did, I honestly didn't think she would make it through basic. Not only did she make it, but she was one of the best of her group. It was tough, she busted her ass, and grew up fast. At the end of basic, she was sent to San Antonio, studying to be a combat medic. Her MySpace blog sez: "In San Antonio now... this stuff is easy!" I can't tell you how proud I am of her, for showing dedication and commitment to something, sticking with it, and making something of herself in the process.

My nephew is smart as a whip. He could have taken an academic scholarship at one of several top universities, but he wanted to serve his country. He is currently in Iraq for his second tour. He plans to go into medicine, and with his brains and the Montgomery GI Bill, his entire medical education will be paid in full. For the record, your constant non-stop rhetoric about the war in Iraq, has not changed his opinion of the mission, or what he is doing there.

Sadly, I can't say that is the case with everyone who has served. We have a number of returning vets, who are traumatized and the leftist campaign of stigmatizing this war as Vietnam 2, has increased the typical problems of depression and post-combat fatigue. You've destroyed any and all underpinnings for honor in serving as an Iraq veteran, just as a previous generation did with Vietnam. You didn't intend for this to happen, but it is the consequence for politicizing the war, and completely demonizing it with the media.

But I can tell you this, as one of the rich greedy capitalist bastards who pays 95% of your taxes, these people will be taken care of. They will be given the best care, counseling, and support, and their kids will be taken care of too. This will be done before any money is spent on liberal social programs of any kind. Your kids and grandkids are going to be paying for it.
 
Have you ever noticed, it is always liberal demofucks who are the ones going on about a draft? It's easy to see why they want one... it makes protesting wars so much easier! It lends credibility to all their arguments about the morality of forcing someone to go off and die in war they didn't support.

Duh! No fucking shit Dixie. The scary part is that for some immoral and irrational reason you mean that as a criticism.

I mean Jesus Fucking Christ, you consider it a character flaw to not want to go fight and die for something you don't believe in? That's not only plain fucked up, it's about the stupidest god damned thing I've ever heard anyone utter. No wonder the Republican party is shrinking smaller than your pencil dick in a cold shower.

Dixie there is no human activity less credible and more deserving of criticism and questioning then the insanity known as war and if you don't understand this you are sick, twisted, fucked up individual or just incredibly gullible and stupid and probably all of the above.

And as for our injured and disabled Vets, who the fuck are you trying to kid? I've been around to long and seen Republicans and right wing nuts talk about the glory of being a soldier until one gets hurt, then when it comes time for you to live up to our social contract and provide for their needs and to fork up the money to pay that cost you reactionary wing nuts scream "SOCIALISM" and you hang them out to dry like a piece of dog shit, you fucking hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Duh! No fucking shit Dixie. The scary part is that for some immoral and irrational reason you mean that as a criticism.

I mean Jesus Fucking Christ, you consider it a character flaw to not want to go fight and die for something you don't believe in? That's not only plain fucked up, it's about the stupidest god damned thing I've ever heard anyone utter. No wonder the Republican party is shrinking smaller than your pencil dick in a cold shower.

Dixie there is no human activity less credible and more deserving of criticism and questioning then the insanity known as war and if you don't understand this you are sick, twisted, fucked up individual or just incredibly gullible and stupid and probably all of the above.

And as for our injured and disabled Vets, who the fuck are you trying to kid? I've been around to long and seen Republicans and right wing nuts talk about the glory of being a soldier until one gets hurt, then when it comes time for you to live up to our social contract and provide for their needs and to fork up the money to pay that cost you reactionary wing nuts scream "SOCIALISM" and you hang them out to dry like a piece of dog shit, you fucking hypocrite.
Do you support a military draft? I would hope not with the above diatribe.

Because the focus of Dixie's complaint is at the dichotomy of those who claim support not fighting in a war they do not believe in, but simultaneously support the authority to force people into military service to fight wars they don't believe in.

From my POV, having been in the situation, I'd far rather the people in the fight be there because they volunteered. Conscript soldiers in an unpopular war is almost invariably a recipe for disaster.

As for the lack of adequate care for wounded and disabled vets, it is aan ongoing problem stemming all the way back to before WWI, and has been prevalent under administrations of all flavors - left right and middle. All the veteran medical facilities that made multiple news headlines not long ago did not suddenly deteriorate when Bush got in office. They were that way before, and no one saw fit to do anything about it. They were not significantly better than what the news showed during my stay way back in 1968.

The hypocrisy runs thicker than frozen molasses in every political camp when it comes to actually supporting the people they claim to. The republicans are too busy buying the latest in fancy weaponry to spend anything on maintenance of veterans, and the democrats invariably cut military spending across the board - to include military medical facilities.

Of course not even the most adamant "privatize everything" republicans were willing to go so far as to suggest discharged vets provided their own health insurance for war related health problems. Talk about taking "support the troops" hypocrisy to new levels! Thank God Obama backed down on that one. But as a vet, I still have to question the bastard for even considering it.

BTW: People who spend their careers, or even a single voluntary term, in the military do not do so "because they have nothing better to do than kill". So fuck you and every damned one of you anti-military elitist rose-colored-glasses assholes.

And yes, there is a fundamental difference in the level of civic duty between volunteers for military duty and non-volunteers. Some draftees attain the level of volunteers during their service, most do not. That is especially true in war time, and especially-especially true during a war like WWII which poses a genuine threat to the nation. If you do not believe me, try reading a bit about Maslow's Hierarchies.
 
Last edited:
Duh! No fucking shit Dixie. The scary part is that for some immoral and irrational reason you mean that as a criticism.

I mean Jesus Fucking Christ, you consider it a character flaw to not want to go fight and die for something you don't believe in? That's not only plain fucked up, it's about the stupidest god damned thing I've ever heard anyone utter. No wonder the Republican party is shrinking smaller than your pencil dick in a cold shower.

Dixie there is no human activity less credible and more deserving of criticism and questioning then the insanity known as war and if you don't understand this you are sick, twisted, fucked up individual or just incredibly gullible and stupid and probably all of the above.

And as for our injured and disabled Vets, who the fuck are you trying to kid? I've been around to long and seen Republicans and right wing nuts talk about the glory of being a soldier until one gets hurt, then when it comes time for you to live up to our social contract and provide for their needs and to fork up the money to pay that cost you reactionary wing nuts scream "SOCIALISM" and you hang them out to dry like a piece of dog shit, you fucking hypocrite.

First of all, thank you Mott, for dropping by to concur with my point. It's pleasing to know you agree with me, that the left only wants a draft so they can more effectively protest war.

As for injured and disabled vets of the Iraq war, I can promise you this, liberals will either have to pay up or sacrifice precious entitlements, but our soldiers who fought this war will be cared for. Yep, you are going to all pay for as many years of counseling as it takes, to combat the effects of what you turned this war into. And you're going to keep paying for it, as long as they live, as long as they need help coping with what you did to them. Before a penny is set aside to teach kids how to use condoms, before one red cent is allocated to fight global warming, before any spending bill is considered, there is going to be a discussion of how much money will be spent for Iraq war vets first. We who pay the taxes will demand this!

Now of course, you will continue to blame the problems (and the cost) on Bush, and that is fine, blame away. The truth is, you and your liberal idiot friends caused it to be much worse than it had to be. This is the price we will all pay, for your turning Iraq into Vietnam 2.
 
I mean Jesus Fucking Christ, you consider it a character flaw to not want to go fight and die for something you don't believe in?

See... here is the deal, Motthead.... We currently DON'T have a draft, and because of this, people who enlist in the military, do so because they believe in something. Since the legal limits on a tour of duty is 4 years, it's safe to say, anyone currently in the military, believes in what they are in Iraq and Afghanistan for. In most cases, those beliefs were strongly the reason for them joining the military.

And hey........ Surprisingly enough, this also includes socially liberal people who voted for Obama. YES! There are people who, believe in our mission in Iraq AND vote for liberal stupidity! And they serve in the military! But one thing there is not.... people who don't believe in what they are doing. That is not the case with a volunteer army.

It is the reason you want a draft. That would immediately facilitate your argument! It is also the reason it is pathetically stupid for lefties to continue bringing it up. No one wants it, there is no good reason for it, there is no benefit to it, other than facilitating a now-hollow argument from the anti-war left. To be honest, the suggestion of a draft does more to undermine your side of the argument on Iraq, if you ask me. You reveal how desperate the left is, to stigmatize the war by using any means possible. If there were a draft, you could "rile up" the people about the war! And that is the ONLY reason you want it. Consider this... the chances of you actually ending up getting a reinstatement of the draft, is virtually nil.

So your side has effectively conceded that our voluntary army believes in what they are doing in Iraq, and the families of those who have loved ones there, also believe in what they are doing, and the only way you can think of to possibly change that dynamic, is something that has absolutely no chance to succeed. What does that tell ya?
 
I would be interested to know how many of those who favor the draft served in the military? And how many of those people have kids that will be drafted or are too old to draft?
 
I recall the conversation correctly. But I also know that granddad had a "unique" way of looking at things. Seems that includes his recollection of history.

Try being in charge of a platoon, more than half of which are conscripts who do not want to be there, some who do not even believe in the necessity of the military, let alone their personal involvement, and take that platoon into combat. Then tell me again that a draft is a good idea.

I can tell you from experience, given the exact same enemy force in the exact same combat situation, you would be safer and have a better chance of a successful mission if you have a troop of ten men who volunteered to be there and understand why they are there, than having 30 men with half or more nursing conscript syndrome. Especially if the conditions include involvement in an unpopular war.

There is a huge difference between now and WWII. First, nationalism was not automatically a dirty word as it seems to be today. Second, the threat of the axis powers was recognized even by the most adamant of pacifists. Third, military service was not looked down on as something only people incompetent to do anything else get involved in. With those factors, even in the case of people who did not volunteer, there were few people who did not accept the necessity. And after Pearl there were few who would not have directly volunteered if they had not been told to go home and wait for their number to be called. There simply is not the level of personal dedication to the security of the nation today as was present in 1940.

Another point: many nations who are potential opponents have had 100% mandatory service. The armies built from total conscript systems are cannon fodder. The very few exceptions to that rule -such as Israel- are due to unique circumstances that we will never face.


I think that your opinion and mine are very close on this issue, just that you don't understand mine. I've explained it better in post 18, here:
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=437656&postcount=18"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Why we need the Draft Back![/ame]
 
Where the fuck did you get the idea I said there were too many volunteers for Vietnam or Korea? WWII was another matter, and in the months following the attack on Pearl, there were, indeed, far too many volunteers for the training centers to handle. They were drafting people before then, as I have admitted my error on that issue, but afterward the lottery was more to keep order on the volunteerism than to pull reluctant people in.

My experience with conscript soldiers in Vietnam was very real, and is a prime reason I am against any draft. I am also against a draft for the simple and plain reason that it violates the very principles of liberty on which this nation is founded, and which military service is mandated to protect.

And, BTW, since you clearly did not bother reading the whole thread before proclaiming your lack of reading comprehension before all, I also recanted my claim about WWII and apologized for my ignorance of the 1940 draft.

As for Bush 41's "peace dividend" I already mentioned that he cut way back on the build up planned and started by Reagan. But like all politicians, he played liars poker with the figures. He decreased the rate of increase, and called it a cutback. He also got caught at it, which was a minor factor in his losing his bid for a second term.

The answer to your question is simple. Why the hell would I support the draft on an immoral war which I do not support. I support withdrawing from Iraq as soon as expedient and we don't require a draft to do that. The problem is, and those nitwit Bushies were warned by Collin Powel about this, we broke it now we gotta fix it and it's royally fucken broke and leave with out creating a political power vacuum in the region.
 
I would be interested to know how many of those who favor the draft served in the military? And how many of those people have kids that will be drafted or are too old to draft?

Well Good Luck brings up a good point. Do you mean favoring the draft in general at time of war or for the present predicament?
 
I think a draft is a good idea. Instead of hearing the Left whine on and on about Haliburton this, Blackwater that, we'll do like we used to do and have a huge support organization of draftees supplying food, fuel, ferry troops and weapons, and provide security. Only the best who volunteer from within that group get to actually fight. Maybe we'll get rid of some lard asses around here as well. :)

Where do you get this fantasy that only the "best" who volunteer from draftees get to fight? Please do a little research into what a G.I. is, and who did the dirty, nasty ground fighting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Now...are you aware as to WHY people criticized Haliburton and Blackwater?
And are you aware as to WHY Charlie Rangel (D-NY) put forth the the Draft proposal he did? And WHY the neocon driven GOP wailed like stuck pigs against it?
 
Well Good Luck brings up a good point. Do you mean favoring the draft in general at time of war or for the present predicament?
How about you answer the same? Do you object to a draft now because you don't support this war, or do you object to a draft in general principle? (ie:If we were in a war you agreed with, would you favor a draft to support it?)
 
1) Read a little history. Ignorance and then requesting "proof" just shows how stupid people are choosing to be in their pursuit of defending the bullshit their parties throw at them. But there are a few facts.

In 1941 available military training facitilites could handle approximately 16,000 new recruits per 8-week training period, less than 100,000 new recruits per year. On December 8, 1941 more than 150,000 men showed up nation wide to volunteer for military service. That's 1.5 years worth of recruits using available facilities. Even moving at emergency speeds, new training facilities were 6 months to a year away from being able to take on additional load. Now YOU think about it. You have 150,000 recruits IN ONE DAY, and more coming in the following days. How do you determine who gets trained first? By lottery - ie: selective service.


2) Where in the FUCK did you pull THAT lie out of? Your anus must be HUGE!

Reagan had built up the military to unprecedented peacetime heights. His focus was to increase the full time military by 20% and the ready reserves by 60% over a 20 year period. You ignorant pissant libtards scream bloody fucking murder about it for 8 fucking years,

Bush 41 significantly decreased the buildup as denoted by Reagan's 20 year plan, but still continued some build up while shifting focus to additional training for ready reserves. By the end of the combined 12 years under Reagan and Bush 41 the full time military had seen a 15% total increase in personnel and 12% increase in ready equipment. The ready reserves had seen a 45% increase in personnel and an incredible 35% increase in ready equipment.

Clinton's first 2 years in office changed all of that. First thing they did was cut training funds for ready reserves. Then they passed legislation reducing the size of both full time and ready reserve components. I was still serving at the time. I know what happened from inside. I saw people I worked with double slotted (ie: they were put in the same job as another soldier) because their old slot was eliminated. That means when promotion time comes, only one of them will be promoted as a slot above them opens up. It also means they wait twice as long because chances were the slot above them is also double slotted, taking twice as long to open up. The result was a HUGE number of trained soldiers choosing to ETS rather than sit around with their careers essentially put on hold.

There were brigades that were decreased to regiments. There were regiments completely taken off the books. The reasdy reserves were even worse. A specific instance, the 163d Armored Brigade of Montana National Guard (which included units in the Wyoming National Guard) was eleminated. In it's place they kept 2 out of 4 maneuver battalions and an air supprt wing. Eliminated were an artillery bn, transport bn, HHQ company, air attack bn, and several other support units. It resulted in a 65% reduction in personnel slots for the Montana and Wyoming Army National Guards.

Your little piece of "history" is an outright, bone faced lie.


3) A volunteer force WOULD be enough. The force as built up under REagan was all volunteer, and had enough more people at the time to handle the current crisis. And lets not mention the fact that it is hard to recruit people when others are running around vandalizing recruiting offices, interfering with the recruiting process, etc. Building up additional forces in a time of crisis is always difficult. That is why I detest the way the democratic party ALWAYS wants to cut military spending in time of peace (and in some politician's case - who thankfully lost - in time of war.)

You've got a nasty attitude, bunky.....pity all you've got to follow up on it is the usual easily disposed of neocon propaganda. Wipe the spittle from your mouth, observe and learn, :


1. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 that made the Selective Service System an independent Federal agency. People were DRAFTED during peace time That's a matter of fact & history. 10 million men were drafted between 1940 and 1947....DRAFTED, NOT volunteers....got that bunky?
http://www.selectiveservice.us/military-draft/7-use.shtml

2. Your supposition and conjecture loaded diatribe ingores this little FACT: Clinton's annual military budget was around 16% less than what Reagan/Bush had....a result of cutting the FAT from the Pentagon...or did you forget those lovely stories about the hammer costing around $1 grand? And remember, Clinton's military budget was balked at by Repubs still fuming that their speaker Gingrich was tossed out in disgrace. That budget did NOTHING like you suggest above http://fas.org/man/docs/fy01/b02072000_bt045-00.htm

3. We are currently living with the results of 30 years of a volunteer army. The Shrub & company ELECTED to invade/occupy a country that was NOT a threat to us...as did his father before him. The result is a relative small portion of the country fighting these wars...and that has resulted in a back door draft and abuse of our National Guard. THAT is the reality...you can spew all the venom and Rovian BS all you want, but you can't change the FACTS.
 
Back
Top