Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, the Dems are in charge and Charlie is pushing the draft once again. I really have nothing else to add. We beat this to death many times, especially when the snopes'd email was making the rounds before the 04 election.
 

·
Never forgets
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
I wouldn't mind seeing some kids I know drafted. Maybe a drill sergeant can beat some respect for others into them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
What makes you think we want to deal with the kids their parents can't raise? We're a military, not a fucking nanny service.
 
2

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
He thinks this will deter people from starting wars in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
It's to make a point and bring it to discussion. Rangel voted against himself last time this call for a draft was made.

You think if every congressmen/women's kids were in the same line as the rest of America ready to be sent to war they would just say "ok"? No. There would be a louder call for investigation into whether preemptive war is truly needed.

It's easier to call the guy stupid than to actually think about what he is proposing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
What don't you get? Stupid Democrats > Stupid Republicans

Mac was just saying Republicans have screwed up that bad to allow people like this in office.
:banghead: Duh! Thanks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
It's easier to call the guy stupid than to actually think about what he is proposing.
So we should try to read their minds rather than take their words at face value?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
No mind reading needed. Look at his actions. He spoke of shared sacrifice. When people of all classes are subject to the draft, then the nation overall has to sacrifice their youth. You think these congressmen would have voted for war with the flimsy intelligence knowing that their constituents and their children were vulnerable?

"Let's start a war, as long as someone else fights it." It shows the further separation of those who manage from those who do. There are real implications of sending troops into battle. They're not just numbers in you arsenal, they're people with lives and families.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
"Let's start a war, as long as someone else fights it." It shows the further separation of those who manage from those who do. There are real implications of sending troops into battle. They're not just numbers in you arsenal, they're people with lives and families.
As a matter of national policy they are and always will be a number in an arsenal. If they ever become more than that we lose our will to act for the benefit of all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
So soldiers are just robots to use at our will and their deaths are meaningless? Say that to the family of a lost soldier and see if you don't get a slap in the face.

For the benefit of all? The benefit of all the people not in the army... That's the friggin point! When it's sending someone else into battle that's fine, but when you might be the one having to go and fight, it's another story.

Which sounds better for you?

A. Send the troops into battle.
B. Send your son/daughter/cousin/self/wife/husband into battle.

People pick A because they are removed from the entire process and feel nothing when there are reports of more dead American soldiers.
 

·
clemclan is offline.
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
So soldiers are just robots to use at our will and their deaths are meaningless? Say that to the family of a lost soldier and see if you don't get a slap in the face.

For the benefit of all? The benefit of all the people not in the army... That's the friggin point! When it's sending someone else into battle that's fine, but when you might be the one having to go and fight, it's another story.

Which sounds better for you?

A. Send the troops into battle.
B. Send your son/daughter/cousin/self/wife/husband into battle.

People pick A because they are removed from the entire process and feel nothing when there are reports of more dead American soldiers.
It's the balance that's so horribly difficult. Leaders in the Military at every level must always grapple with compassion for the individuals and the need to send troops into situations from which some/many will not return. My guess is that there would be much less discussion about this had the US limited its post 9/11 attacks response to Afghanistan, or if WMD had in fact been found in Iraq. IOW, I think some of this is simply making political hay from the blood of the soldiers. Nasty cold thing to do, but both parties play the game.

I voted against Bush both times, partly because I thought he was an arrogant idiot. Nonetheless, absent evidence that the Iraq intel was fabricated or doctored in some manner to influence the outcome, I'm unable to say *with certainty* that had I been in his shoes, I would have decided differently than he in re Iraq. Hard to balance even a remote nightmare "What If..." scenario with Monday Morning Q-backing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
So soldiers are just robots to use at our will and their deaths are meaningless?
Nope, not what I said.

For the benefit of all? The benefit of all the people not in the army...
That's the way it works. Military memebrs don't even get the full protection of the constitution but instead agree to have rights limitied by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Which sounds better for you?

A. Send the troops into battle.
B. Send your son/daughter/cousin/self/wife/husband into battle.

People pick A because they are removed from the entire process and feel nothing when there are reports of more dead American soldiers.
I've sent good friends into the battlefield and into burning buildings. I've even lost friends in those places. I don't know which choice you'd call that.

At least clemclan is using his noodle and has an appreciation for the conundrum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
While at face value and/or under republican spin it doesn't make himself nor the dems look good... If he is successful in getting his true intentions out there, then I think people will get it and be more apt to consider the costs of war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
I'm not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I'm using past actions to deal with future implications.

Perhaps mandatory military service isn't such a bad idea. Many countries do it, and people gain respect for what our troops and guardsmen actually do. People get a first-hand look at the circumstances and results of battle and may make more informed decisions next time. Learning from experience and mistakes.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top