General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo You Want to End Unnecessary American Wars? Reinstate the Draft
That's right, bring back the Draft. No deferments. Everybody in. Pick by lottery.
I grew up during the Viet Nam conflict. I protested against the war and wrote about ending it in my College paper in 1970. I mistakenly thought then that ending the draft would end unnecessary American military intervention. I was 104 in the lottery in one of those last years. Look it up. 104 was September 18 in 1970 when I turned 18. I thought, "who would join if they didn't have to"? History has proven me wrong.
Let Mitt's 5 sons and so many others like the Romney family enter the draft. Let's see how gung-ho they are when their flesh and blood is involved. Let's see if they're willing to risk those they love and cherish in a war they know is built on a lie.
If we choose again to go to war, to put boots on the ground, then it should be "everybody in". I now believe that the war protests in the late 60's and early 70's were fueled by the fact that anybody could go. You had to lie or defect to stay out of the war. The only way you could remain an American and in good conscience not go to a war you knew was wrong was to try to end it. That's what's missing today. If everybody's kid is at risk, everybody would bloody well be informed about the conflict and the lies would be more closely examined by the general public.
Anyway, that's my thought for today.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)What the GOP is doing now works too well for there to be a draft. Jobs are so bad for younger people without money the military is the only option for them. And the conservatives just love it that way.
elleng
(130,905 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)They figured out how to grow the military by making it the only viable choice for young Americans to make a living and to escape poverty. They started cutting social programs for just that reason. Force the youth to choose between abject poverty or joining the military.
They won't reinstate the draft because they don't need to. And it could stop their profitable wars and we can't have that.
elleng
(130,905 posts)
lunasun
(21,646 posts)No deferments could actually stop wars from starting!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war, plus a few minor interventions, occurred with a draft. Conscription enables more and bigger wars, always has and always will. Plus "they" are much better prepared to suppress resistance to a war than they were in the 60s, in fact they have been preparing for just such a scenario for the last 40 years.
Fuck the draft.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Well, it’s a racket, all right. A few profit- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it.
You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parlays at
Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be
smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."
-Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket, p. 39.
pampango
(24,692 posts)with each other. The old days of hyper nationalism and closed borders never saw such a long period of peace. So international agreements can lead to peace.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)within short succession leaving millions dead we'd lose a taste for it too.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And in terms of relative population, the Civil War was awfully gruesome.
Of course to many Americans these "don't count" since killing lots of Indians and having a civil war doesn't allow us to tell the british "if it weren't fer us, hur hur"
Scuba
(53,475 posts).... Nixon ended the draft precisely because it was the source of opposition to the war.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The government is very well prepared to put down any resistance movement, far better than it was in the 60s, and no the internets doesn't change everything.
The proponents for the draft keep citing the fact that the draft sort of ended as we pulled out of Vietnam. They ignore the fact that we were there with draftees for years, for over 50000 casualties, before that happened, and that it was the cold war draft that enabled that war to begin with. You all have no historical basis for your assertion that the draft would prevent a war, the best you have going for you is that it might shorten one. I'm making the claim that it wouldn't even do that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... we will have fewer and shorter wars. The current "poverty draft" gives our war machine a free license to sacrifice American lives for corporate profits.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That is the second ahistorical part of the argument you all make. You wave a magic wand and the corrupt sausage factory in Washington produces a universal draft that is actually universal. We obviously live on different planets.
But even then that would not stop one damn war from starting. You cannot point to one war that was prevented by the draft. Yet you keep claiming it will do this, and we are supposed to accept that on faith. What history shows is that conscription enables wars, but you all keep claiming it does the opposite. And the best you can do to back that up is to wave a magic wand that puts the kids of the rich on the front lines - that ain't ever going to happen and you know it. Not in the real world.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... secondly, your reach of historical precedent ignores the fact that the world has never been like this before.
When I served, the military was full of folks from all walks of life, including the wealthy. A draft that required ALL able-bodied men and women to serve would indeed act as a deterrent to war.
Arguing that Congress is incapable of enacting such a draft does not change this.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Conscripts are cheap. The appropriate term is cannon fodder.
"the world has never been like this before"
Indeed we have never before had this pervasive a surveillance state within the parameters of a nominal democratic republic.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)probably don't have children of that age. And we know that no matter what, the rich won't be going.
The only possible good of a draft is to get the people in an uproar. But that won't stop the poor and middle class from being drafted while the rich find ways out or go in at a high level out of harms way.
Fuck the draft. agreed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just as their parents persist in the cane-waving, sanctimonious declarations that "we need another good war!" we're going to hear the boomers rattling their walkers and shouting about how "we need another draft!" for at least another two decades.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is and was the only decent thing we did.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)but I say Fuck the Draft.
Drale
(7,932 posts)I'll tell you right now, if they reinstate the draft I will give up my citizenship and leave the county. I will not now nor ever join the military and the only time I will ever fight "for my country" is if the United States in physical invaded by a foreign force or if there was ever a coup and extreme right wingers controlled the entire government.
And also I feel I must once again point this out, our military is to big as it is and to costly,yet you want to add hundreds of thousands of more soldiers to it? You are nuts.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I know a young vet just recently back. He's having a terrible time. No food. No shelter. THey should automatically put these guys into the welfare system at the least, until they get reacclimated to this life again (if ever). That's the least they can do for these guys they used & abused.
And I feel exactly as you do about being drafted into our current military.
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)It seems to me that poverty increased when the draft was abolished and thus lots of poor kids joined the military because it is the only way out of poverty.
To defect from the war meant giving up your country and your family and friends. It was a major decision and not an easy one.
Those who had deferrals like Cheney or got the cushy National Guard (at that time) avoided getting killed or maimed. Many were young rich lads who did not want to get shot at.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can claim "everybody in" all you want. Doesn't mean a kid like W would be sent to the "front lines".
So under your proposal, plenty more kids of poor people to throw into a meat grinder, while the kids of the people who start the war walk around the Pentagon or other US bases.
w8liftinglady
(23,278 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Rich kids would never be put in harms way. Why give the MIC more cannon fodder?
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Take to the people who will ultimately pay for it. No more of this in-the-cover-of-darkness crap.
Draft and sell those bonds. Don't want to do either, then no warring for you.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Men were clamoring to go to war in World War II. The Draft was instituted to filter out the 4F's, the ones who were unsuited to fight. Designation 4F, the "unsuitable for war", was the a status that men DREADED back then. 1A, "ready to fight" was a validation of one's manhood.
In Vietnam, it was the exact opposite...
braddy
(3,585 posts)A draft versus volunteers has nothing to do with the medical exams given to every soldier.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Look up history... 4F was devastating. Men did what they could to get around 4F to get sent out.
In 'nam... it was the exact opposite.
http://nebraskastudies.unl.edu/0800/frameset_reset.html?http://nebraskastudies.unl.edu/0800/stories/0801_0106.html
The 4-F Classification
After the draft was instituted in 1940, not all of the young men who registered were accepted into the service. Thirty percent of registrants across America were rejected for physical defects. The 4-F classification was given primarily for muscular and bone malformations, hearing or circulatory ailments, mental deficiency or disease, hernias, and syphilis. There were ramifications when a man got that classification.
"Nobody wanted to date these boys who didn't pass their physicals, and we called them "f-Fers." Now that I think back, that was terrible. . . We all thought they were physically unfit to go and fight for our country. How awful!"
— Sylvia Iwanski Chalupsky, Ord, Nebraska State Bank employee.
"When I started college in the fall of 1944, it was like a girls' school — 95 women and only five men students. During the second semester of my sophomore year, more male students were enrolled. By 1948 when I graduated, there were twice as many men as female students. During that first year, several of the girls dated high school seniors because to us the boys on campus were '4-F.' They needed a good reason for not being in the service to be respected by the girls."
— Wanda Mowry, Bayard High School student.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Wearing a uniform is one thing, combat arms is another.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)'tis nayest I say, NAY.
toddwv
(2,830 posts)20%, no loopholes, for those earning $500,000 or more while we have US soldiers deployed overseas.
jimmyd13
(4 posts)in 1969, the first year of the lottery draft. We had a gathering at a friends house with about 12 of us watching the drawings on TV. I'll never forget a friend of mine who's birth date was chosen on the first draw. He clutched his stomach and fell from a couch to the floor. But he caught a break when drafted because he was sent to Germany, not Viet Nam. I was never drafted.
And I agree. Bring back the draft and watch how fast these unnecessary wars come to an end.
Marinedem
(373 posts)Actually, let me rephrase that.
Fuck no.
I don't have enough hours in the day to talk about how stupid it would be.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)military is stronger than a group that doesn't even want to be there. And #3, I am not giving up my kids to a war machine. It's one thing to defend your nation. It's another thing to defend corporate interests and resources.
My Dad was a member for Veterans for Peace and he didn't want my boys going into the military, not the way they are running things now.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)Do you really want the PTB to have a large pool of young people to fight and die in yet another unjust war? Do you really think that the 1% would ever be on the front lines? Yeah, everyone might have skin in the game, but their skin would not be on a battle field, instead, their skin would be safely placed in areas where the only thing they had to worry about would be a hang-over in the morning.
Since when have things been fair?
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)They explained their lack of service this way to me.
"Someone had to stay back here and protect the womenfolk."
True story.
Don
djean111
(14,255 posts)The rich will manage, as always, to evade the draft.
And the will of the people doesn't count for much any more.
The rich and their Congressional lap dogs will just ignore - at best - the general public.
Like they do now.
Besides - you said "if we choose to go to war" - there is no "we", the American people do not get to choose anything any more.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)We'd only go to war when it was absolutely necessary then.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)No one wants a draft except those mistaken few who think it will magically stop war.
The draft has never stopped war and it never will.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Pull a double and get a second thought for the day, because this is a dumb one.
You bring up Mitt's sons. Okay. You know Mitt Romney got four deferments, right? You know Dick Cheney got what, three? Daddy Bush bought his kid a cushy spot in the Texas National Guard. So on and so on. Similar families of wealth and means got to "step aside" in previous conflicts, all the way back to our foundational war in 1776.
18 in 1970? So you're fifty now. How cushy for you that you'd be well above draft age? Know what's hilarious? Every other time this "new and original" idea comes up, it's from someone else over the draft age.
Alright. You want a draft? Let's reinstate the draft. But more than that, let's pick up where we stopped. How 'bout that? All of you guys who pop your heads up here every day and spout this idea? Your number's up, and you get to be the first ones disembarking on our new conflict. After all, "everybody in," right? Starting with the people who want it most.
thumbsup: : 
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The first draft in the US occurred during the Civil War. Draftees could get out of it by paying a fee of $300 in gold (the equivalent of $24,000 today). The enactment of the draft led to the New York Draft Riots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Several states utilized the draft during the Revolutionary war; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Colonial_to_1861
And when you get down to it, conscription is conscription, whether or not it's a lottery.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)but it was not consistent or widespread. The Continental Army was made up almost entirely of volunteers, both rich and poor. A lot of volunteers were wealthy, or at least well-to-do men, like Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, and Ethan Allen. The leader of the Continental Army, of course, was one of the richest men in the colonies at that time, George Washington, who actively participated in the fighting.
The draft was not officially implemented by the US until the Civil War, and there was immediate opposition to it because of the provision that allowed wealthy draftees to evade the draft if they could come up with the $300 "commutation fee".
louis c
(8,652 posts)Re-Do your math.
Anyway, my point is that these wars have people doing 4 or 5 tours of duty with mainly the middle-class and poor doing the fighting.
I think the draft during Viet-Nam ended that war. If we had an all volunteer army, we might still be fighting it.
Afghanistan has been a longer war and we're still fighting it. Where's the outcry?
I contend that it is being fought by a small portion of our citizens, so the outcry is contained.
I hate war and at 60, I will never fight.
But I have family that could go. I am against foreign conflicts, except in the most necessary of circumstances. And then only with an act of war by Congress.
I think that we would not go to war except when absolutely necessary if everybody had skin in the game.
I'm not saying that I know I'm right. I'm just saying that it's a thought.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)That's one reason many are dubious not only about the effectiveness of a draft in preventing or ending war, but they also question the consequences to the innocent victims and their families.
That doesn't even count draftees who were wounded and maimed (for which you can multiply the 17,000+ deaths roughly by 5).
That's something else we need to be thoughtful about...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)First off no, Afghanistan has not been a longer war. Vietnam still has one year on it (remember, we were sending "advisers" in pretty early on... those "advisers" were armed and taking part in the fighting.) You'll also note the relative body counts between the two. Both for us and our "enemies." There's a pretty big difference between the two engagements in that regard.
Ypu think whatever you like, but it's not fact. The draft went on for the entirety of the Vietnam war, as well as the entirety of the Korean War, and every other war back to the Civil War. You think Vietnam was nasty and against popular sentiment? Research our war in the Philippines.
What ended Vietnam was the fact that the Vietnamese people defeated us. The United States went in to "defeat communism," never considering for a moment that the people of "South Vietnam" wanted communism. We were attempting to pacify an extremely popular revolution in a nation we were ill-equipped to fight in. The Vietnamese won. Eleven years after our first guns started firing, we noticed that we had done nothing but lose ground, at high cost in lives and money, and decided to cut losses and pull out.
This is something that you and those of your generation on the right have on common. Neither of you can stop and admit that the Vietnam war didn't "end," it was lost. It doesn't sink into your head that the causes for this loss were in Vietnam, and not in whatever town you were living in at the time. It wasn't protests, it wasn't "lack of will to win," it was simply that the Viet Cong had the overwhelming popular support of the South Vietnamese and the backing of the NVA, and our military was unable to overcome that.
If you want a draft, take your spotted wrinkly ass and go fight. I'm not going to put my butt on the line so you can relive some dumb fucking fantasy that never happened in the first place.
Hotler
(11,421 posts)talking mass protest. The same people that poo-poo the draft always have an excuse for not protesting. Nothing is going to start to change in this country until three things happen.
!. More people feel the pain. (That's why I say let the repugs have 2012.)
2. People take to the streets by the tens of thousands in every state. (Shut this country down for two plus months.)
3. Democrats give up their "I have have mine. Fuck you." attitudes. Yes they have it too. They just don't wear it on their sleeves like the repugs do.
flame away.
Pretty good analysis, problem is the military industrial complex understands your point also so it will never happen. Today military is optional form of action and every now and then they have to use the military to justify it. Billions of dollars feed the machine, large companies have and still do depend on the military for profits and business is good. Wars are marketed just like everything else, if you have ever heard an F-35 fighter commercial, the grandiose announcer; American is the greatest fighting force in the world and the F-35 leads the way ,Which is complete BS because this aircraft got smoked in Air to Air combat training against all of the Air craft it faced. Not to mention the numerous weapons systems sold to the military that never saw combat and are now obsolete, can you say wasted tax payer dollars.
The actual Soldiers are way down on the priority list, the key is to keep them in a mindset that they are important, but if they were important the why are a good percentage of them of Food stamps? The 1% has rigged the game, you never will see Mitt’s kids go to war, but you can best believe your kids will be used to paint the foreign lands with blood, for profit. It’s funny that the most gun ho politicians never have a dog in the fight. The moral convictions to fight a War has been kidnapped for contracts and profit.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)My son will not set one FOOT in a corporation-benefitting invasion of folly.
pampango
(24,692 posts)politicians who vote for war.
A terrible idea but worse than drafting 18-year-olds who probably weren't old enough to vote when the war-declaring politicians were elected?
And any society that is progressive enough to truly make all classes equally susceptible to a draft is too progressive to start wars in the first place. The rich will not have their children subject to a draft if there is a war that required more "cannon-fodder".
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)A year or two ago I read an article about reinstating the draft that claimed that the biggest problem we'd have with a new draft would not be getting enough names on the roles but instead trying to find a just way to defer service. It seems we have way way more young people who would be eligible to serve than we have a need for hot bodies. As I recall, and this could be way off, only about 5% of the available pool of potential draftees would be required to fill the ranks - so how do you exclude 95% of the people in anything like a just manner?
Arkana
(24,347 posts)to fight in a war that I don't support and NEVER supported.
Some people feel a calling during times of conflict to serve in the armed forces. Not me.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)My firm belief is that any member of our government that advocates sending our troops into harms way, MUST have an immediate family member directly in the line of fire or be removed from office. Hey, I can dream, right?
(And yes, I already realize it isn't workable.)
hack89
(39,171 posts)unless you are willing to pay for a massive expansion of the military, the military will only need a small fraction of eligible men and women. And don't forget that there are many that are willing to volunteer - that leaves even fewer positions for draftees.
A second problem is that so many young people don't meet standards for joining the military, whether it be education (have to be a HS grad), physical (too many overweight people) or criminal (to many people with drug/alcohol infractions)
That poses two problems:
1. The question of fairness - way too many young people not draft eligible.
2. It does not meet your desire for "everybody in".
Javaman
(62,530 posts)I'm always amused by the "reinstate the draft to stop wars!!!" meme.
If I recall, the draft for Viet Nam went into effect in 1969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)
and the war didn't end until...
1975.
and to believe that "everyone must serve" blah blah blah, I have a bridge to sell you.
As long as their are the ultra wealthy, there will always be people who can buy their way out.
And if that ability is somehow defeated the ultra wealthy will always serve in the rear. (no pun intended).
So please stop with these grand proclamations if irrationality, it really serves no purpose other than venting ones spleen if ridiculousness.
braddy
(3,585 posts)1948 to 1973. About 30% of those killed in Vietnam were draftees.
In 1963 we sent 16,000 troops. For some interesting info look here, it mentions Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Truman and Eisenhower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War
Javaman
(62,530 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)While the draft did energize the anti-VN War movement, the war continued--with more than 17,000 draftees KIA and many more draftees wounded and maimed.
And even if many of the VN-era exemptions were to be thrown out in some new, universal, draft, the wealthy will always be able to find doctors who will document the medical/physical unfitness of their princes for service. It's only fair--after all, they have better things to do. 
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)And my response is always the same: Fuck no.
I'd rather keep things the way they are now if it means risking me and the people I care about going to war.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)all avoided the draft in Vietnam. Rich kids never fight for this country.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)I was growing up during Korea and was discharged from the Navy in the early years of Vietnam. ('60-66') But it did have a lot to do with keeping the country focused on these 'wars of choice'. And I do remember how there was always some reasons for certain celebs and wealthy, not to be inducted.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)will easily figure out how to send your kids off to war while keeping their kids out. In addition, the same way that they work in generous tax breaks for their rich benefactors, they will find loopholes for their rich benefactors as well.
In theory, a draft would make more Americans pay attention to wars, but in practice, it won't work.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
DinahMoeHum
(21,787 posts)instead of merely draft-dodgers.
The late great blogger Steve Gilliard blasted this notion of the draft being a class equalizer out of the water back in 2006:
http://www.alternet.org/print/story/44556/the_draft%3A_no_solution_to_social_inequality
(snip)
When we talk about the draft, it is through the prism of World War II and the GI Bill. We see the mass armies of World War II as leveling -- one where people served without class distinction.
This is Hollywood's fantasy.
In reality, rich kids gravitated to the Navy and Air Corps, or the OSS, the Office of Strategic Services. They didn't sign up to be Rangers or Airborne, much less infantry.
(snip)
Why do people believe this? There are two factions, one who wants to see the risk spread to more corners of society, and others, who think that the Army can create social equality.
The problem with this thinking is that the rich and well-off just pick other services without much physical risk of injury. The Navy has long been the choice for America's upper class. All three Kennedy brothers who served in World War II chose the Navy -- Ted Kennedy was drafted into the Army during Korea, but stayed in the US.
(snip)
Much more at the link:
http://www.alternet.org/print/story/44556/the_draft%3A_no_solution_to_social_inequality
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)First, I don't see any evidence that it would decrease the number of wars we engage in.
Second, it would degrade the military. Having it populated by people that don't want to serve hurts its effectiveness, which means that more people get killed.
Third, it would hurt the people in the military. To make a volunteer force work, you have to keep pay and incentives high enough to attract and retain people. If you force them to join, you don't.
If you want a law that makes military service compulsive for all appropriately aged children of congresssman, federal judges, and senior whitehouse staff, I'd be interested in that. Making it a broadbased universal thing is not a solution I want.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)not to mention the draft is fairly antithetical to our whole notion of freedom and personal liberty.
I would be ok with a mandatory period, say three months after finishing HS, of national guard type training (so military + emergency response) with no military obligation.
It would provide useful skills to kids, a sense of community, and a huge reservoir of people should we need to bulk up the military in the future.
But no obligation to serve in combat.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Screw that. I support the 13th amendment.
Want to reduce the number of people in the military, work to reduce poverty and close the disparity between rich and poor.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)What the author is talking about is limiting the killing machine by causing more public abhorrence for it. People will not long stand for a war that isn't fought in their own defense when their own children might well die in it.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)There is another way, that way is to simply elect leaders who won't go to war over BS reasons in the first place. Leaders who actually use diplomacy rather than the big stick. Your way would force people, against their will, to labor. Having been in the service I would never wish such a punishment on any man or woman.
That's exactly my point.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)You're right, it did lead to more public opposition to the war. And thousands of draftees dying, being wounded, and being maimed.
Even with the increased opposition, the public stood for it long enough for more than 17,000 draftees to die in combat.
Why the hell would anyone with a draft-age kid want to support a new draft?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)such a timely fashion.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Louis, I understand this was done with good intentions in mind. Okay? But the thing is, it wouldn't work; this kinda thing is exactly what the Republicans have been pushing for since the Iraq War started, and if it were to happen, this would backfire on us, very badly.....the truth is, there were PLENTY of wealthy kids in the Vietnam era, too, like most of the Dixiecrats for instance, who would have been able to avoid service no matter what, simply because they could.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Then, there will never be a war again.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)I think the fact that you could be drafted into the Viet-Nam War ended it.
Please understand that questioning our Government didn't really begin until the 60's.
WWI was declared. Right or Wrong, a declared war is certainly different. Korea had support from the unquestioning residue of WWII.
Too many people today have no clue about why we are in the Middle East, nation building.
They and their loved ones are not at risk. A draft will not make the world perfect, but it will make Americans question why we fight. And the questions could avoid or end a conflict more quickly.
Just my thought. I'm not saying that I know I'm right. I'm not saying there isn't a down side.
What I am saying is, "where's the protests for a 10 year war that is still going on, and nobody knows why?"
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Fuck that.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)stopped the wars, it should be reasonable to conclude that actually drafting people (or talking about it) isn't going to stop the unnecessary wars either.
area51
(11,908 posts)actual liberals in congress & the white house.
