I missed the memo...why all the draft/conscription threads?

[HereSince1628]

are we mobilizing for war, or is this just a return of a perennial topic thread?

[djean111]

1. Trial balloons. perhaps?

I was surprised at this, more warmongers than I thought there were.

The idea that if we all had skin in the game - or, rather, the skin of our children - people would organize or unite or something is pretty naive. The police are real ready for demonstrators now.

[HereSince1628]

15. It's a topic that comes and goes, so many people find it interesting

I wasn't sure if there was something specific

[99Forever]

41. Those of us who had skin in the game...

... called The War in Vietnam, say you have no idea of what you speak. Nothing motivates quite like knowing that you or someone you love is about to become cannon fodder.

Naïve, my ass.

[djean111]

44. Back then, I lost two friends to kidney cancer - agent orange. My grandson is almost 20.

What I am saying is that I don't think the government really cares what we think any more. They will be able to stop demonstrations by kettling and crowd contro; with tasers, tear gas, sonic screamers, who knows what else the police have been gifted with, and raring to use; the media may be complicit, the FBI/CIA/NSA will be all over the internet and telephone lines, listening, knocking down doors, arresting, nipping in the bud. The politicians have the big money behind them, and, IMO, only care about voters during election season. I don't want people to die, waiting for the government to respond to public opinion.

[99Forever]

47. People are already dying contrary to public opinion.

How long have we been at constant war? Showing ANY signs of that changing? What are you doing right now to change that dynamic? If you KNEW your grandkids were headed to a gruesome death in the meatgrinder MIC's latest adventure, would that motivate you? It sure would me.

[JoePhilly]

2. Best way to ensure we only go to war when we have to.

A draft with no exemptions of any kind.

Let's see the GOP war Hawks vote for that.

[former9thward]

6. The party that imposes the draft -- any draft

will lose the youth vote for a generation. Which is what Charlie Rangel seems to want given his continued introduction of draft legislation.

[JoePhilly]

10. Best way to keep them from being sent to dumb GOP wars.

[former9thward]

14. LBJ had no problem sending draftees to a dumb war.

[JoePhilly]

22. You could be exempted from that war. Get a deferment.

It has to be no exceptions. No deferments.

Everyone at risk.

[former9thward]

34. Then why was anyone drafted?

Since it was so easy to get a deferment. It was not that easy and most deferments expired at some point.

[JoePhilly]

56. I do not care why they got deferments at any time in the past.

And it was much easier than you think.

But that's irrelevant.

If we are going to go to war, then everyone should be ready and expected to serve. No exceptions.

Otherwise, its not worth doing.

[uppityperson]

52. Drafting young men/women keeps them from being sent to dumb wars? Huh. And all this time I thought

stopping those dumb wars from happening was they way to prevent people from being sent to them.

[JoePhilly]

57. Having a draft available as a way to select people to go to a war ...

... is not the same as holding the actual draft and sending them.

If our government wants to have a war, then every American should be ready and expected to serve.

If a war is worth having, then everyone should be involved.

And in case you had not noticed, not having the draft has not prevented us from sending them to dumb wars, has it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Still wouldn't work.

The old would still send the young off to fight and die. If you really wanted 'no exemptions', you'd have to eliminate the age range, and have every single adult take part, no matter how old.

[JoePhilly]

11. Fine with that.

No exemptions.

[HereSince1628]

16. So it's a response to a perceived threat of war?

Which war? Iraq, ISIS, Ukraine? Iran??

I'm wondering

[JoePhilly]

21. All wars.

If we have to have any war, we should all be at risk.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. It's amazing to see that attitude expressed so casually in a country that literally denied me the

option of service along with my entire class of people until I was too old and injured to be of use. I find it surprising that in a country where LGBT people had to chain themselves to fences, get arrested, be discharged just to fight for the right to be at risk, so many people suddenly seem passionate about the idea that everyone must be at risk.

[djean111]

46. Pretty fucking amazing, isn't it?

[JoePhilly]

55. Yea, cause that's what I said.

Your response is stunning in its silliness.

If we are going to go to war, at any time, everyone should be ready and expected to serve, period. No exceptions.

The fact that the government would not take you, or other LGBT folks in the PAST, is irrelevant to that statement.

Everyone means everyone. No exceptions.

[yuiyoshida]

38. Are we still so blood thirsty that someone on the planet has

to die from products made from our Industrial Military Complex? Who MADE US GOD?

[LiberalElite]

54. I'm for return of the draft

but I think there would have to be some exemptions- my father was 4-F in WWII due to a medical condition.

[JoePhilly]

58. Send him somewhere to do something.

Being sent to war (at a minimum) disrupts your life, even if you don't go to the front.

Everyone should be subject to such disruption ... if any war is so important that we need to send any troops, then we need to open up the risk to everyone.

[LiberalElite]

59. ok there are other things a person could do but

medical problems do have to be considered. My father had TB. How far into basic training was he going to get?

[JoePhilly]

60. No basic for him, he works at the VA, handling paperwork.

Or, if it's a very serious illness, and that alone might kill him, he's excluded.

But the only way this works is if everyone, and I mean everyone, is at risk of going to fight, or having their life significantly disrupted as part of the war effort.

Think Rosey the Riviter, and then some.

[LiberalElite]

61. Yes agreed - no more "I had other priorities"

a la chickenhawk Cheney.

[City Lights]

3. Some people are eager to send my kids off to die for the MIC. nt

[KMOD]

4. I have no idea.

[Spazito]

5. I think it's because the media has been reporting polls saying the American public...

support boots on the ground to fight ISIS. Would they be so supportive if it were their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers wearing those boots? Hence the draft threads, I believe.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/isis-poll-americans-want-boots-on-the-ground

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumf

[former9thward]

8. The American people supported the Vietnam War at the beginning.

And that war was supplied by a draft which was also supported.

[Stardust]

18. Are you sure about that? That's not how I remember it. Are your referring to the mythical

"silent majority?". Total BS back then.

[former9thward]

31. If it was BS Nixon would not have been elected.

Twice.

[Stardust]

63. His first election, he vowed to end the war. The second, remember Nixon's "dirty tricks?" Just

because he won, doesn't support the logic that the public supported the war.

[former9thward]

65. Nixon won the last election in a landslide.

No credible person suggests he "stole" it dirty tricks or not. By November, 1972 the war had nearly ended. Nixon had "Vietnamesed" the war as he called it and the peace accords were signed in January, 1973 just two months after the election.

[LanternWaste]

67. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc

Twice.

[Spazito]

19. The draft where those with money and connections could 'buy' their way out of...

being drafted, yes, it was supported. That changed when the body bags started coming home in overwhelming numbers and the public realized the predominant men being drafted were those without money and connection and veterans like John Kerry spoke up.

If a draft were instituted, one that didn't allow the discriminatory 'outs' the previous draft had, where the 'lottery' was equal across the board, I tend to think those who are quick to want 'boots on the ground' would not be so quick at all.

[JoePhilly]

23. + 1

[former9thward]

32. So you would ban volunteers?

The military turns away volunteers now because it has enough recruits. In order to have a draft volunteers would have to be banned -- which would make no sense.

[Spazito]

39. Volunteers could still volunteer during the previous draft...

so why would another draft ban volunteers? THAT makes no sense.

[former9thward]

42. OMG

A draft was needed because there were not enough people willing to volunteer. Now there are. It is simple math.

[Spazito]

45. LOL, you do realize the difference re rotation and tours of duty, right?

There is only "enough people willing to volunteer" because instead of limiting the number re tours of duty, the volunteers are sent back over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Try that math on for size.

[former9thward]

48. The military is big enough.

Don't like troops being " sent back over and over and over and over and over and over again" then stop using them in unneeded military adventures. Try that math on for size.

[Spazito]

49. LOL

Which was exactly the point to begin with, the public might not be so quick to support "unneeded military adventures" if they were risking their own loved ones, had skin in the game.

[former9thward]

50. No that is not the point.

We should have a military with volunteer professionals. With today's technology it would be insane to have people there that did not want to be there. The draft has stopped no war despite people "having skin in the game".

[Spazito]

51. Yes, yes it is exactly the point n/t

[HereSince1628]

24. I remember -early- on people were still in "stop the commies" mode

I'm thinking 61-64 things opinion among young people really faded as troop strength escalated. By 68 rejection of it by young people was a large part of Chicago Dem convention demonstrations. After My Lai, things went downhill and the turning point battle of Vietnam was fought by the Ohio guard against students at Kent State.

At that point, there was only interest in finding a way out.

[HereSince1628]

17. So fear of more Sandland wars maybe

[Spazito]

20. Sandland wars?

I have no idea what that is, have never heard that term before.

[HereSince1628]

25. "Sandlandistan" is the way vets at the VA in Milwaukee refer to

the theater of action this past decade in sw Asia ...

-istan is deemed racist by some so I left that off

[Spazito]

26. Ahhh, thanks for the explanation...

I understand now.

[giftedgirl77]

33. We call it the sandbox....

Been there a couple of times.... it sucks.

[Xithras]

64. Why would "istan" be deemed racist? It's certainly redundant.

-"istan" is simply the Persian word for "place of" or "land of". The portmanteau of "Sandistan" would simply man "Land of Sand". Sandlandistan is a bit more redundant, translating to "Land of Land of Sand". Balochistan translates to "Land of the Balochs". Uzbekistan translates to "Land of the Uzbeks". Pakistan actually has two different meanings. "Paki" is derived from the Persian word for "pure", so Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure". It was also selected because it contains the first letters of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Sindh, which were the major parts of India carved off to create Pakistan. It can be taken to mean "Lands of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Sindh".

Last I checked, there was nothing inherently racist about using loanwords from another language.

[HereSince1628]

66. I don't know, but in the past people complained when I used it.

the istan suffix apparently refers to an Islamic nation

[Xithras]

68. Eh, not really.

San/Stan is Persian in origin, is only used in areas that were historically part of Persia, and doesn't really carry any significance beyond it's basic meaning as a place identifier. Khoristan/Khorasan are names used for places in Iran. Both names literally translate to "Land in the East" or "Place to the East" in Persian. Persians, and Indian Muslims, also tend to refer to northern India as "Hindustan" and have for thousands of years. It simply means, "Land of the Hindus"...and Hindus aren't Muslim. It's simply a way to refer to a place, and doesn't have any religious or ethnic connotation. In the parts of the Muslim world that don't speak languages derived from Persian, it doesn't have any meaning at all. In the Arabic speaking Muslim world, the word for place is "makaan", and "stan/san" is essentially a meaningless foreign word.

My guess is that the people complaining about it didn't understand what it actually meant. And, for what it's worth, the proper Persian form would be something along the lines of "raigistan", which would translate to "Land of Sand".

[HereSince1628]

69. and so it comes back full circle...

Generally, I try not to use terms that upset DUers. Sometimes offending seems hard to anticipate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Haven't they all been from one poster?

I assumed he just wanted to get a feel for what people on the left side of the political spectrum felt in re the idea in more detail than just 'against'.

[John Poet]

12. Well, my thread on Selective Service

started as a response to a survey question, then I decided I may as well make a new thread out of it.

So 'twas the others who got my mind on the subject.

[gwheezie]

13. People seem to want to invade Iraq again

Beats me why but we've been intervening in Iraq for decades and we think this time it's going to work. Several presidents both GOP and dem have ok'd some form of military action there.
To me if we go to war we should have a declaration of war, a draft, raise taxes, impose rationing to direct resources to the war effort and nationalize private industry to contribute to the war effort. If the threat to our country is not serious to do that then it's not worth one american life.

[Iggo]

27. Some days this board just seems like an open range for wedge issue trial baloons.

[HereSince1628]

28. I suppose there's that possibility, fracture lines run through and around us

some day we will be as multi-faceted as a cut gem

[Sarcastica]

29. You missed the scandal "du jour"!!! Hillary never registered for the draft!!!!!!!!

I believe Fox is running a 90 minute expose' this week. Expect it to be regularly cited fior the next few months.

[MADem]

30. It's in the rotation, along with Olive Garden, Smoking, Pit Bulls, Leashes For Children,

"Alternative" Sexual Practices, and a host of other "fighting over nothing" topics that are common here at DU!!!

We will never go back to a draft--most people don't qualify, even if they go back to the slackened standards of a decade ago. No sense in spending tens of thousands outfitting and training someone who isn't going to make the cut. The All Volunteer Force has been a success for well over a quarter century.

[yuiyoshida]

40. DON'T FORGET...

Bombing the Moon!!!

[MADem]

43. Ha ha ha!

This place is seriously crazy, sometimes!!!!!!

[bluedigger]

36. Most people here are fine with a de facto economic draft.

As long as the poor "volunteer" to be cannon fodder it's okey dokey.

[Paladin]

37. It's way too easy to commit other peoples' kids to war.

Hawkish politicians, an enabling media, and a worshipful Thank You For Your Service public mindset have turned the instigation of warfare into a thoughtless, shoot-from-the-hip exercise. Next up: Boots on the ground against ISIS. Permanent military deployment at distant global sites is not something we ought to be tolerating.

[uppityperson]

53. Because some think they can easily persuade congress to have a fair and equitable draft.

They do not understand history either. I used to think the draft was what ended Viet Nam but have learned that that is not true.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. circumcision, olive garden, breast feeding, sports illustrated swimsuit issue, draft. nt.