I'd support the draft.

100%

In fact, I support Required Service. I think every male in the US who is not handicapped, be required to serve 26 months of active duty between the age of 18 - 26...

I can't think of any way it would hurt, and i tmay even help some waward kids, who sorely missed out on parental disciplining; may as well get some discipline from their Uncle.

Each State's National Guard and the Federal Military Reserves federally subsidized, this is why they can call them up.
There were Guardsmen who got to Desert Storm before I did, and I was Active. Especially Fuel Handlers. In this day & age, the Guard & REserve make up nearly 60% of our countries "Military" forces.

That's just proof- there is no such thing as a "safe" military occupation, outside of the Air Force, Navy & Coast Guard anyway!


Just kidding!

 

And some MOSs are 70% Guard/Reserve.

They are changing that.

 

If there is a draft, I definitely think they should change the age from 18 years old to 21. I mean these kids aren't even of legal age to drink alcohol, but yet they are allowed to carry a gun and kill? In fact, driving a vehicle should be 21 too.

 

Don't worry guys, it'll never happen. Not unless we are literally under attack and they're coming on our soil and we're out of bombs and other large weapons.

Duke

 

Interesting point---I teach---and the kids that I see going into the military are certainly not from the upper-income homes. They are not unintelligent, but often have nothing else to turn to. I do not think that a draft would work today, as the military is requiring more and more INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. Several of my students who have flunked HS could not get into the military---in the past---this was indeed a viable option. There is a great deal of technology involved, and today it is not the "Follow the orders or else" mode.

My father was drafted during the Korean War. He said that it was amazing to see all of the men from all over the US---it was certainly a melting pot (Salad bowl?). One point he did bring up, though, is the incredibly large number of STUPID people that were inducted via the Selective Service. I cannot attest to this, as I was going to join the USMC after college (PLC), but blew my knee out in football---you vets---would you agree or disagree on this point?

Today, think about it---with all of the techo involved, the US military wants more than the "four years in jail or four years in a uniform" mentality. Ponder this---would you want to be in a bunker or a fox hole with somebody who can't quite figure out how to use the weapon while under fire?

No, I do not think that the SS will be back---but we have to honor those who do decide to give their time, their blood, or their lives to us. For some, the US military is all they have---their present, as well as their future.

Tim C.

 

Nah, keep the driving at 16 (I'd debate 18). That way they at least get SOME need for speed out of their system before partaking of the Nectar of the Gods.

I'm just imagining a 20 year, 364 day old individual camping outside the DMV on the eve of his birthday in order to get his driver's license to head down to the liquor store to buy a case of "The cheapest stuff you've got." That can't end good.

 

Off topic, I know......

I hear what you're saying, but it just bothers me seeing a 16 year old behind the wheel of a machine.

 

It stands to reason you'd get a ton of stupid people from a draft....just think how many stupid people you run into every day.

 

I'm not saying war and drinking have anything to do with eachother, I just wonder why the ages are set the way they are......driving at 16, draft at 18, legal to drink at 21. It doesn't sound right to me.

 

I really do see both sides of the argument.

On one hand you can die for your country at 18, but can't legally enjoy the freedom of a sip every now and then.

On the other hand, as Craz3d said, war and drinking have nothing to do with each other. I'm inclined to think that someone at 21 will have more experiences and observations of what alcohol will do to a person if not consumed responsibly. As a result that older individual will tend to make a more educated and informed decision. Whereas the 18 YO knows that war is war and the dookie can hit the proverbial propeller at any time, but that alcohol is "Fun and never hurts anybody."

I hear you LT, I've pondered this myself and don't have a solution.

 

But is it responsible to let an immature teenager have use of a vehicle that we all know can kill? Is it responsible to let someone go to war that is barely an adult? And we all know that people can do stupid things while drinking at any age.

 

Remember---throughout history it has been as follows:

It is the old men that declare war and "lead" men into battle: It is the young men that fight and die during the war. Perhaps if the old men would fight the wars, they might end...

As Robert E. Lee once said, "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."

 

Does anyone remember Rangel bringing this up in '04? (he actually introduced a bill in '03) Do you remember how it was played that Bush would reinstate the draft? Do you rmember how people reacted? Not the same as they are today. Why?

 

Perhaps if the old men fought we would live in a communist country.

The older I get the more I understand the reason young people are the ones that fight for our freedom. With age one may gain wisdom but will most likely lose aptitude, endurance.

 

Perhaps if the old men fought we would live in a communist country.


I respectfully doubt that. Why is everybody so afraid of communism? Remember the "Red Scare" of the 50's? "Better dead than Red"? Some may need to re-read The Crucible by Arthur Miller to understand the devestating effect that the righteous politicians had on America---"Tail Gunner" Joe McCarthy and his "witch hunts." Communism---it ain't gonna happen in this country.


Nope, while we may respectfully disagree with each other, this country would never become a communist one. Slightly socialist, yes---Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc---but never Communist. My point was that perhaps the older men should think deeper and ponder the outcomes with more intensity before sending our youth. I was speaking rhetorically, sorry.

And yes, I have an understanding of why we send them; men are physiologically at their fittest between the ages of 18-23. Too bad the wisdom of the old cannot be transfused to the energy of the youth...

Tim C.