If they enlisted then they were not forced to and I would be willing to bet those who did enlist ended up doing much better while they were in and after they got out. I have a major problem with the government taking away any right we have for any reason especially guns. I would be ok with the government starting back the draft also, it didn't hurt me when we had it.
There's quite a lot of things my tax dollars go to that I do not support. Others do. But probably more important is our, the peoples representatives in congress and the president signed them into law and thus I am forced to support them. We have no draft and haven't had since Nixon. I was drafted in 1966 and made the military a career. The best thing that ever happened to me. Without the draft I probably still would be working on the farm and in an old pig iron foundry. What is moral or immoral varies greatly with each individual. The thing is with the draft, at least here in the states, it would be passed by our elected representatives, those who supposedly represent us and signed into law by a president elected by the people as a whole. The draft as most of us remember it was first signed into law prior to WWII and ended with Nixon. If I remember right Lincoln instituted a draft during the civil war. But other than that, military service has been basically voluntary. This nation has relied on volunteers and in the early part of our history, state militia. I would say that during the period of the draft, for the most part anyway, Americans were more patriotic, probably far more patriotic than today. Back then JFK asked or said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He'd be laughed out of town today if he said that as a right wing nut. A member of what some people call today as the alt right. Today, it is about what our country can do for us while we do nothing for the country. Different eras, a different view on what is moral and what was immoral.
Well I wouldn't mind if they started back the draft. A little military service would be good for so many of the younger generation now.
Doing better? You would lose your bet. taking away guns: no draft: yes ~ ok, we know where you stand = bad is good, good is bad ~ very Orwellian of you
obviously,someone hasn't read history and does not know of Republican Wall Street's role in those wars or of Vietnam being caused by Republican Eisenhower but I repeat myself ...
Is North Korea a voluntary military or Russia or China or even Switzerland. If no one on earth ever wanted to go to war then there would be no need for military but how would you get everyone to stop wanting to kill others when you only have control over your own thoughts and actions.
Yes, it says a lot about a person when they run towards the sound of gun fire. It clearly says you want to help the helpless even more than preserving your own life.
Hmmmm - OK, I'll accept that idea if the government sends Trump's and Mitt Romney's children to war. After all, none of them ever served in the military.
That holds no water. The wealthy people get out of anything they want out of including taxes, that is just a fact of life in the world. Just because some can get away without serving doesn't mean no one should serve.
Funny how some of you pro draft apologists say the draft is part of the price tag for "living free" and having all the good things the USA offers. Well, the wealthy should be the ones who are most grateful for all that since they get it for free. On that basis, they should be the first ones to be drafted and forced to fight in a foreign war.
Bollox. If this was true. we might as well impose a "compulosry cottonfield-service" where young, "useless and namby pambies" are put to pick cotton for the government for the sake of creating "disciplined citizens". Ugh. Only a totalitarian sado-masochist can reason in this way. Public enslavement is always morally wrong, at least to the one who claims to support individual righrs and even for the one's seeing a strong military as a must, conscription ought to be seen as useless because it is both a wasterful and a very inefficient way of organising military defense. As an anti-interventionist, it is my moral obligation to oppose conscription and anyone who claims to be one, should oppose it or they lack principles. Conscription is a form of Socialism since it is a matter of expropriating resources from the population; not only economically speaking, but also from an individualistic point of view. The conscripts freedom is put entirely in the hands of government and if he refuses, they are free to do to him as they please. Of course, the government will use propaganda into brainwashing him to accept this slavery because "it is good to protect your nation". Only a totalitarian can advocate conscription without shame because as soon as a free country imposes conscription, it loses all its credibility. The American term to be used here is Unconstitutional.
Exactly. If we put all men (these days many nations and war mongerers even advocate conscription for women too), it means we waste the time of skillful entrepreneurs and hard working men since these have to "train for war" instead of creating wealth. When the conscripted man is called into war, he risks losing his ilmbs, being forced to pay a lifelong tax that does not only include economic capital, but also social and cultural capital. He even risks dying for a cause he does not believe in. People who do not want to be in the army should not be in the army; who wants an illoyal army anyways? Who wants soldiers who are soldiers because of fear? Putting everyone in the army is militarism and militarism can never create peace - this means that the argument of "it is the army we have to thank for the peace we now enjoy" as rather unjustified. This is said not with disrespect to the brave men who go to war, but as disrespect to the politician who pushes able-bodied youngsters to the battlefield as they themselves sit at home and drink wine and eat cheese at a peace-meeting in Brussels. At least in Medieval times, kings had the audacity to be in the frontline of the wars they waged.
In a perfect world everyone should serve for a few years of their lives but as a previous poster pointed out much of our current young generation is not suitable or fit for service which is a sad commentary on the state of our society.
Thank goodness you aren't in any position to give ANY orders what so ever. If there were ever some punkass kid in my unit that was forced to be here and didn't want to fight, I'd chapter his ass out of the Army. The draft is retarded.
I doubt it but I haven't looked into it. I wish I knew. Unfortunately there are those who thirst for war and there are those who have been thoroughly indoctrinated by those who thirst for war. Governments trumpet patriotism as incentives to join the military, whatever the consequences. "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine
You have been well indoctrinated in revisionist history. MACV was established by JFK in 1962. Before MACV there was MAAG that was run by the U.S. State Department and the CIA not by the U.S. military. The PLAV (VC) was formed on December 20th 1960.(One month before JFK took the oath of office as POTUS) Before Dec. of 1960 what would become the VC were nothing more than commie terrorist. (Most commie wars of liberation usually start out as terrorism.) North Vietnam didn't start infiltrating the RVN until 1961 and these weren't the NVA soldiers, just North Vietnam civilians who joined the VC. The NVA didn't start appearing in the RVN until 1964, 65. So where does President Eisenhower fit in ? Eisenhower who never saw a day of combat in his life was a master of military strategy and building and training armies. Eisenhower also knew how to read maps and key to stopping Communist expansion in South East Asia was in Laos preventing North Vietnam access to what would be known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail not at the 17th parallel. The CIA has been conducting a secret war in Laos before the 1960's. 1.) On January 20th, 1961 outgoing President Eisenhower informed JFK "Don't get involved with the Diem regime. It was just to corrupt." 2.) If you want to stop Communist expansion in South Vietnam it has to be done in Laos not in South Vietnam at the 17th parallel. 3.) If you ignore my warnings and find yourself in a shooting war...it has to be fought as total war. President Kennedy as usual ignored Eisenhower and his elders but instead listened to his Harvard buddies known back in the day as "The Young and Brightest" who in the end game ended up not being so bright. JFK decided that America would stop Communist expansion in S.E. Asia at the 17th parallel and not denying North Vietnam access to the Ho Chi Minh trails and roads.JFK left the entire western flank of South Vietnam open for supplying the VC and eventualy for the NVA to invade South Vietnam In 1961 JFK cut off most funding for the secret war in Laos and started flooding the RVN with U.S. military advisers under SEATO. SEATO was comparable with NATO. By 1963 JFK realized that Eisenhower was right about President Diem and signed off on the CIA backed military coups (regime change) of removing Diem from power. Like Obama's regime changes (all failed) , JFK regime change backed fired and failed when Diem was murdered. From that day on the United States owned Vietnam, it became America's problem. The world watched especially Europe. What will JFK do ? If SEATO fails...NATO will likely fail. Three weeks later in Dallas, Texas JFK would meet the same fate as President Diem. The world watched...what will LBJ do ? We never should have been in South Vietnam. The Vietnam War was just one of the many proxy wars fought during the Cold War, just one battle of the Cold War.
Strange. Well an excessive belief in uniqeness is a problem, I don't see the issue with wanting perspective purity and peace of mind.
I joined the Navy in 1961 and had never heard of Vietnam. The news reports I remembered were about Laos. What a mess.
