Author Topic: Slavery? Draft?  (Read 8256 times)

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2006, 05:00:53 AM »
Quote from: Iapetus
A British perspective:

From 1949-1960, the UK had compulsory military service, called "National Service".

You quite often hear people here suggesting that the ending of National Service was the cause of the (alleged) breakdown of society since then, specifically the cause of the (alleged) rise in the the number of lazy / irresponsible / criminal youths.  They suggest that subjecting these people to military discipline and getting them to serve their country would make better, more civilized people of them.

The military itself is totally opposed to this idea, as they don't want to have to babysit a bunch of unwilling, illdisciplined and potentially criminal conscripts.


Incidently, I read recently that the Scandinavian countries have a totally reversed view of National Service.  They see it as a way to ensure that the military contains plenty of well-educated middle-class people, who would otherwise be unlikely to enlist.
The military is opposed to it (as they are here too) because it is grossly inefficient.  Training is expensive and expending those resources on soldiers who wll stay 2 years is not a good use of money.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2006, 01:24:55 PM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Oleg Volk
Quote from: jfruser
Personally, I don't have too big a problem with it in times of necessity such as the Civil War, WWI&II, etc.
WW1 was a neccesity for the US? With this sort of differences in the definitions of "necessity", I don't see draft being a good idea simply because people tend to disagree over what constitutes a good cause.
That is what a political process is all about.  People discuss it, eventually come to a vote and there is a consensus followed.  If some people still disagree, that is the price of living here.  At least they were able to get their side's message heard.
I am of the opinion that we should not have jumped into WWI.  I think we ought to have let the euros bleed each other unitl someone cried, "uncle."

What Rabbi said.  Thing is, the elected representatives of the people came to a different conclusion.  At that point, it becomes a necessity.  Along with COTUS-enumerated rights, economic opportunity, and all sorts of other cool stuff come a few responsibilities.  Among them, is the responsibility to come a-marching if your fellow citizens go to the trouble of asking in accordance to the COTUS and federal law.  There are other countries on this earh, if the USA doesn't suit.

Quote from: lupinus
WW1 is an iffy war IMO.

They did sink a civilian ship with Americans on it, and we aided our allies which to me is what allies do.  I don't think it was a war that absoloutly needed to be fought, but it is a war that was justified to me personally.
lupinus, we were no wronged innocents prior to the sinking of the Lusitania.  Our gov't had provided beau coup material support to the Allies.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #52 on: September 11, 2006, 02:07:13 AM »
Quote from: lupinus
In some ways you are right fist but I am not talking about severly handicapped people.  For most roles I am talking about people who if the SHTF can do what needs to be done in a defensive role esspecialy in deployment roles, but that for various reasons can't kick in doors all day everyday.

Take someone for instance that has a bum knee.  He can man a computer station, be fully trained in the use of small arms, how to take up a defensive position and counter attack, get a wounded buddy out, etc.  In other words most everything most of the military guys and gals who man computer stations and support roles can be expected to do.  He just wouldn't go through the parts of basic that he wont be expected to utalize and can't be expected to go on raids and what not because that level of use his bum knee wouldn't hold up agianst.  I am not talking about outright cripples for deployment.  I am talking mostly about people who have disabilities that don't render them usless, but limited.  And it would free up those who are in no way limited for the roles that they can do rather then sitting behind a computer or driving a truck all day.
Quote from: lupinus
As to guard duty I don't mean a street in Bagdahd.  But the guy that checks you on your way into a military base?  In less likly to be attacked areas someone who in a pinch can manuever just fine but that just can't hold up to kicking in doors day after day?  It isn't hard to man a defensive position and pull a trigger when needed.  Hell theres no reason why they couldn't even be drivers.  Just saying there is no reason to keep people who are disabled to one degree or another from going through a different set of basic training that focuses on defensive fighting and positions, rather then the extreme physical conditioning and offensive training.
Having folks we know are "differenly abled" aforethought is a very bad idea.  

Take the inclusion of women in deployable units (please!).  A buddy of mine was in a commodity area where 2 out of 3 supply enlistees were female.  Both women get pregnant at roughly the same time.  Guess who's workload increased 200% for the duration of the pregnancies?  His wife did not get pregnant during that time.  He did not see enough of her to accomlpish such a feat, despite no precautions, good Catholic family that they are.

In my case, I was put out of the Army on disability.  Sort of a combination of Newton's Third Law and post-op ostermyelitis did a number on my ankle & leg.  No more door-kicking, no more jumping out of taxpayer-financed aircraft, no more ruck marching, etc.  I was officially "nondeployable" for the last months I was in the Army. Yet, I was deployed anyway due to the severe shortage of soft skilled personnel.  I understood this and did not make a fuss, though I could have.  All the deployments were training, though we did not always know that at the time.  Could be training, could be flying to some hotspot.  I knew that if the situation went tango uniform and we had to beat feet, I was toast on a stick.  without tansport I was moving no faster than a gimpy trot without toting any gear.  I don't think we want that as policy.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2006, 08:35:32 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Oleg Volk
"Today's culture expects those goods as something of a birthright to be given to them. It doesnt work that way."

Today's culture, at least as examplified by the people around me, is to expect a high standard of living by trading or otherwise cooperating with others...not by warring on them. I have no conflicts with people elsewhere, so anyone who wants me to go kill an Iraqi or a Korean or a Venusian would not get my cooperation. If they would insist, with threats for non-compliance, I would consider them to be psychopaths.
Yes, this is the narcissism of the age.  You expect that there will be a legal system to protect your property and your interests.  At the same time you expect that you will have to contribute nothing towards the maintenance of that system.  I see often on this forum the assertion of rights without the aknowledgement of responsibilities.  But the two go hand in hand.  Without responsibilities on the citizens, there are no rights for them.
If  there is a war or military crisis, enough VOLUNTEERS will step up to the plate.  If enough don't that society is doomed anyway, and not even a draft can save it. Stealing years out of peoples lives so McNamara can get them killed in Vietnam when even HE knows the war is lost is EXACTLY the kind of criminal, evil waste a compulsory draft will cause.  You can do anything with bayonets...except sit on them.  Need more troopers?  Do what McDonalds or Wal-Mart does - OFFER MORE MONEY (or other compensation).  For the record, I don't consider the confiscatory taxes I pay to be "...nothing towards the mainteneance of that system...".  In the ABSENCE of any Constitutional provision authorizing involuntary military service, I would have to conlude it is prohibited.   While I might support such a provision, it would have to:

1. Have NO exceptions for college, or Daddy being a senator -
2.  Only be invoked upon a Congressional declaration of war, and AFTER all the Guard and Reserves are activated, and...
3.  Prohibit draftees and activated National Guard and Reserves from leaving the United States & its possessions.

That SHOULD be enought to fight a defensive war of national survival, but not foreign adventures/nation building.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2006, 08:53:54 AM »
Quote from: richyoung
If  there is a war or military crisis, enough VOLUNTEERS will step up to the plate.  Stealing years out of peoples lives so McNamara can get them killed in Vietnam when even HE knows the war is lost is EXACTLY the kind of criminal, evil waste a compulsory draft will cause.  You can do anything with bayonets...except sit on them.  Need more troopers?  Do what McDonalds or Wal-Mart does - OFFER MORE MONEY (or other compensation).  For the record, I don;t consider the confiscatory taxes I pay to be "...nothing towards the mainteneance of that system...".
This is why all major wars in this country back to the Civil War were fought by volunteers rather than conscripts.  Right?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2006, 09:05:59 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi.
This is why all major wars in this country back to the Civil War were fought by volunteers rather than conscripts.  Right?
Do you think the meatgrinder of WWI trench warfare could even EXIST without the draft?
Exactly what compelling national interest triggered our involvment in WWI?
Our involvement in WWII found us on the side of the number one and number two EMPIRES, AND Godless Communism, to boot.  So much for "fighting for democracy".  Why spend blood, treasure and lives to preserve the British Empire?  If Nazis and Commies are fighting, why not sell bullets to both sides?  You KNOW FDR was, if not BREAKING neutrality, certainly bending it all out of shape whilst fighting an undeclared, illegal naval war against Germany well before Pearl Harbor ever was attacked.  Probably could get more than enough volunteers if we fought just Japan.

Do you NOT see the irony of the North fighting a "Civil War" to make men free - by forcing men, some of them not even American citizens yet, to fight, kill, and die against their will?  Why is slavery BAD if used to raise cotton, but GOOD, if used to kill, in the service of DENYING a people self-determination of their government, a principle that we SUPPORT when its Ukrainians and the (former) Soviet Union involved?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2006, 09:11:40 AM »
OK, so you admit that fighting wars with volunteers only is an unworkable idea?  The rest of it I am going to ignore for now.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2006, 09:19:14 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
OK, so you admit that fighting wars with volunteers only is an unworkable idea?  The rest of it I am going to ignore for now.
It is PRECISELY BECAUSE fighting (some) wars with volunteers is "an unworkable idea" that I want it to be DIFFICULT to IMPOSSIBLE for the State to get its hands on anything OTHER than volunteers.  I want continuing to send men to die in what is known to be a lost cause like Vietnam to be "unworkable".  I want meatgrinders like WWI to be "unworkable".  The next time a sizeable chunk (red staters, anybody?) decides to peacably leave the United States, I want a war of aggression to force them to stay to be "unworkable".  The next time an Imperial President decides to wage an undeclared war on a belligerent while piously promising that "I will not send your boys to die in any foreign war", I want it to be "unworkable".  If some politicians have an urge to play "world cop", or go nation-building, I want it to be "unworkable".

Some things SHOULD be "unworkable".  In a democracy, if you can't get enough volunteers to fight the war, don;t fight the war.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2006, 09:24:33 AM »
Quote from: richyoung
It is PRECISELY BECAUSE fighting (some) wars with volunteers is "an unworkable idea" that I want it to be DIFFICULT to IMPOSSIBLE for the State to get its hands on anything OTHER than volunteers.  I want continuing to send men to die in what is known to be a lost cause like Vietnam to be "unworkable".  I want meatgrinders like WWI to be "unworkable".  The next time a sizeable chunk (red staters, anybody?) decides to peacably leave the United States, I want a war of aggression to force them to stay to be "unworkable".  The next time an Imperial President decides to wage an undeclared war on a belligerent while piously promising that "I will not send your boys to die in any foreign war", I want it to be "unworkable".  If some politicians have an urge to play "world cop", or go nation-building, I want it to be "unworkable".

Some things SHOULD be "unworkable".  In a democracy, if you can't get enough volunteers to fight the war, don;t fight the war.
OK.  So you admit that your statement:
Quote
If  there is a war or military crisis, enough VOLUNTEERS will step up to the plate.
was simply wrong from the get-go.
Equally, your statement:
Quote
If enough don't that society is doomed anyway, and not even a draft can save it.
is historically inaccurate and misinformed.
Right?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2006, 09:31:51 AM »
Quote
by both sides in the Civil War
Not precisely correct. While indeed a draft was called during the Civil War, it was not by any means the main source of manpower for any side.

According The Origins of the Civil War (Duane Cummings and  William White, Glencoe Publishing Co., California, 1972), most of the people who were drafted by the North never really turned out to serve.

They present the following numbers:

From July 1863 to May 14th, 1864,  537,672 recruits were obtained by the North. Of these, approximately 489,000 people were volunteers. Slightly under 13,000 were actual draftees, and the rest were a variety of hired substitutes for draftees.

On July 18th another call for troops was issued, and 272,463 troops were brought in. Of these 188,172 were voluntary enlistments and 26,205 were draftees (the rest being substitute).

The final call was issued on Dec. 19th 1864m obtaining 187,092 troops (of them, only under 7,000 were draftees).

A similar picture was witnessed in the South.

Quote
It was the Continental Army of General Washington that won the war,
That is an issue of division among historians. Morrison (he of the Oxford History of the American People) seems to think  seems to think that it was the Carolinas Campaign(different from Shermans campaign some years later), not Washingtons exploits, that proved decisive in defeating the British. Second, it was the British, under most accounts, who possessed the more disciplined, professional military, and look where it got them. Cheesy
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,492
  • My prepositions are on/in
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2006, 10:03:27 AM »
Quote from: MicroBalrog
Quote
It was the Continental Army of General Washington that won the war,
That is an issue of division among historians.
I'll take your word for it.  I haven't read deeply enough on this, but every book I've looked at, or professor I've heard from, has stated that the militia was simply not disciplined enough to stand up to the British and their dreaded bayonets.  On the other hand, Washington's regulars were known for running away, as well.  The explanation I've usually heard, besides French assistance, was that Washington only needed to keep his armies in the field, regardless how often defeated, until the British got tired of fighting so far from home, relying for supply on transatlantic shipments and an increasingly alienated American population.  

Something interesting I just read in Trevalyan's history of Great Britian.  Napoleon's drafted army of ignorant peasants and sans cullotes didn't have the professionalism to fight in the standard line formation, so they used a less-disciplined column.  Though an inferior tactic, apparently, it overcame all of Europe until the British met it with their own line formation later on.  Probably a lot more to that picture, though.  Per this discussion, I don't know whether the British were drafted or not.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2006, 10:04:51 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
OK.  So you admit that your statement:
Quote
If  there is a war or military crisis, enough VOLUNTEERS will step up to the plate.
was simply wrong from the get-go.
Wrong? No.  Not specific enough, perhaps.  Let me crystal clear now.  "If there is a war or military crisis THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FIGHTING, enough volunteers will step up to the plate.  If you can;t get enough volunteers, then a democracy shouldn't be fighting that war.  Especially THIS (American) democracy - as there is NO Constitutional provision that specifically AUTHORIZES a draft.

Quote
Equally, your statement:
Quote
If enough don't that society is doomed anyway, and not even a draft can save it.
is historically inaccurate and misinformed.
Right?
Wrong.  This failure mechanism is exactly and precisley what led to the fall of the Roman Empire, numerous Chinese kingdoms, contributed to the fall of the British empire, the Soviet Union,  and French colonialism, etc.  When you are relying on mercenaries, (French Foreign Legion, barbarians, privateers, Hessians, etc) and the unwilling (draftees, press gangs, "prisoner battalions", etc), history shows you are on a down hill slide.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2006, 10:30:27 AM »
Oy.  Let's try again.

Now, without wishing how things ought to be, will you admit that no major war this country has fought has been fought without conscription?  And therefore, this precedent strongly suggests that your thesis is, in fact, incorrect?

Quote from: RichYoung
Especially THIS (American) democracy - as there is NO Constitutional provision that specifically AUTHORIZES a draft.
Am I wasting my time pointing out that Article 1 Section 8 of the USC gives Congress the power " To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years" and "To provide and maintain a navy"?  Or are we back in the RichYoung world of Constitutional interpretation where things mean whatever RichYoung thinks they mean?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2006, 11:29:02 AM »
richyoung, you pretty much ignore the concept of the free rider.  Most won't volunteer for dirty work if thye can get someone else to do it.

Also, according to your standard, no major war we have ever fought was worth fighting, as all the big ones utilized conscription.  I think you and I have a serious difference in views, here, as I think ending slavery, fighting Nazism & Communism, and such are definitely worth fighting for.

Universal conscription is a foregone conclusion since the French Revolution.  We are fortunate in that we can currently meet most of our needs with an all-volunteer force.  This won't last forever.  Conscription will return and the whiners will be turned into men, whether they want to or not.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2006, 07:54:54 PM »
Quote
I think ending slavery, fighting Nazism & Communism, and such are definitely worth fighting for.
Millions of men agree with you, and millions (including me) have volunteered to fight the causes that the state thinks are deserving of the application of military force. A draft, however, is slavery. I voluntarily served in the Marine Corps for eight years. Now that that time is over, if they called me back involuntarily I would go to jail before I would serve again.

No cause is worth forcing the unwilling to fight for it.
D. R. ZINN

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2006, 07:32:02 AM »
Quote from: doczinn
No cause is worth forcing the unwilling to fight for it.
Exactly and precisely.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2006, 07:37:18 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
Oy.  Let's try again.

Now, without wishing how things ought to be, will you admit that no major war this country has fought has been fought without conscription?  And therefore, this precedent strongly suggests that your thesis is, in fact, incorrect?
We seem tohave been able to do Greneada, Panama, Kosovo, GWI & II (against the "fifth largest army in the world" JUST FINE without conscription.

Quote from: RichYoung
Especially THIS (American) democracy - as there is NO Constitutional provision that specifically AUTHORIZES a draft.
Quote
Am I wasting my time pointing out that Article 1 Section 8 of the USC gives Congress the power " To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years" and "To provide and maintain a navy"?  Or are we back in the RichYoung world of Constitutional interpretation where things mean whatever RichYoung thinks they mean?
NONE of that verbiage authorizes forced service.  Nor was it understood to do so ath the time it was written, by the men who wrote it.  In fact, the "militia", being called up, was to supply the bulk of the manpower.  As I'm sure an astute student of history such as yourself knows, the very men who wrote the articles you quote:

1. Had a deep dislike and distrust for large standing armies, and
2.  Also wrote that any power not EXPLICITELY granted to the Federal government was reserved to the states, or the people.  Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that says people can be forced against their will to serve in a standing military.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2006, 07:45:27 AM »
1) I would hardly call Panama or Granada "major wars".  We did fine with a volunteer force against Pancho Villa too.

2) I guess that answers my question as to whether I was wasting my time or not.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Oleg Volk

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
    • Volkstudio Blog
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2006, 09:29:21 AM »
http://index.org.ru/journal/24/vahn24.html
(In Russian, unfortunately) The article covers the use of soldiers as slave labor in Russia.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2006, 11:11:42 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
1) I would hardly call Panama or Granada "major wars".  We did fine with a volunteer force against Pancho Villa too.

2) I guess that answers my question as to whether I was wasting my time or not.
Would you call GW I and GW II pretty big?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,492
  • My prepositions are on/in
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2006, 11:14:52 AM »
Quote from: Oleg Volk
http://index.org.ru/journal/24/vahn24.html
(In Russian, unfortunately) The article covers the use of soldiers as slave labor in Russia.
Is that supposed to discredit the draft concept, somehow?  

Quote from: richyoung
Would you call GW I and GW II pretty big?
Are you saying that the Gulf Wars are "big wars"?

It's not that I support the draft.  I am undecided.  But you anti-drafters are using some very poor arguments.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2006, 11:17:30 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Oleg Volk
http://index.org.ru/journal/24/vahn24.html
(In Russian, unfortunately) The article covers the use of soldiers as slave labor in Russia.
Is that supposed to discredit the draft concept, somehow?  

Are you saying that the Gulf Wars are "big wars"?
"Fifth largest army", yet I note no draft was needed to deal with it....twice.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,492
  • My prepositions are on/in
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2006, 11:20:35 AM »
Sorry, Paco, but as wars go those are small.  "Fifth largest army" doesnt' mean much when they run away or disband.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2006, 11:32:43 AM »
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Oleg Volk
http://index.org.ru/journal/24/vahn24.html
(In Russian, unfortunately) The article covers the use of soldiers as slave labor in Russia.
Is that supposed to discredit the draft concept, somehow?  

Are you saying that the Gulf Wars are "big wars"?
"Fifth largest army", yet I note no draft was needed to deal with it....twice.
They weren't the 5th largest the second time around.  They were also poorly equipped, ill-led, and badly trained.
It was not a major war.  The war itself was over in months.  Casualties were as low as any encounter we've been in.  The U.S. lost over 5,000 men in an afternoon at D-Day.  I can't remember if we have even gotten that close for the entire duration of Iraq.  Nonetheless people were screaming that not enough troops were committed and it required calling up reserves and loosening requirements for induction to make numbers.  There was no draft because 1) the military anticipated (rightly) a war of short duration, 2) popular sentiment was and remains against the draft, and 3) drafting people is expensive.

I am not in favor of a draft, certainly not now.  But I maintain that when there is one it is a citizen's duty to serve, even if "them 'Cong never did nothing to me," as Mr. Clay said.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Slavery? Draft?
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2006, 11:42:19 AM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
 They were also poorly equipped, ill-led, and badly trained.
Congratulations - you just described most every draftee army....I see the draft didn't save Sadaam's sorry carcass.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...