I don't favor one but if there ever is another draft, it needs to not exclude an

[CC27]

RB TexLa  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Nov-02-09 08:14 AM
Original message
I don't favor one but if there ever is another draft, it needs to not exclude anyone based on race,
   
gender, religious affiliation, marital status or educational status.

Never seen this DUmmie before. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6907169

[dutch508]

Nobody should be exempt...

except:

Statistical  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well people should be excluded if their religous affiliation prohibits them from combat.
 This come form a soldier who deployed overseas in combat.

The worst possible thing would be to force someone into combat who is morally opposed to combat. Likely to get themselves and rest of squad killed.

Now deferments based on daddy having a lot of money = college I have no problem with that.

However I am 99% sure there will never be a draft again.
US military is far more technical and used tactics requiring more coordination & communication. Forcing in poorly trained draftees who have no "Esprit de Corps" would like reduce not improve the effectiveness of US operations.

Religious convictions...

DrDan  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. then why also not exclude single-income head-of-families?
 Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 09:05 AM by DrDan
Why put a family's only breadwinner in a combat situation?

and convicted felons.

and those mentally impaired.

and those with significant physical problems.

Seems to me there could still be an extensive list of exclusions - particularly for combat situations.

hobbit709  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. From one of Heinlein's books
 The War Amendment stated that unless physically invaded, Congress could not declare war without a national referendum. The catch was that if you voted FOR war, you automatically signed your enlistment papers-no exceptions.

How about only veterans can vote? Heinlein had that too.

StarfarerBill (51 posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. Oh, no...
 A new draft should be based entirely on individual and family wealth; that is, the richest sons and daughters go first.

And since that won't happen, I oppose a new draft.

 
Funny how all of a sudden, only the 'fatcats' are the people's choice.

USA_1 (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. you forgot to include ''FINANCIAL STATUS''
 If anything, the wealthy elites who started both of Bush's wars should have their children drafted and sent to the front lines.

I doubt the Kennedy family would make decent soldiers.

[ReaganForRushmore]

I doubt the Kennedy family would make decent soldiers.

or sailors, I mean Admiral Teddy ran the SS Mary Jo aground.

[Chris_]

I doubt the Kennedy family would make decent soldiers.

They don't even make tolerable civilians.

[NHSparky]

I doubt the Kennedy family would make decent soldiers.

or sailors, I mean Admiral Teddy ran the SS Mary Jo aground.

Considering Fat Teddy got his daddy to pull strings and get him sent to Germany, rather than face the possibility of combat in Korea, yeah, there is that.

Oh, that and the fact that Ted never got above PFC.

[jukin]

The worst possible thing would be to force someone into combat who is morally opposed to combat.

Ob the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to make doctors kill babies.

[Chris_]

Ob the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to make doctors kill babies.

The doctors are going to be slaves of the federal Gubmint, forced to provide healthcare without compensation.  Of course it's appropriate to force them to provide such "health care proceedures". 

[ReardenSteel]

olegramps  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-02-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
22. Heaven forbid I have a friend who is a former Catholic priest:
 He said that enrollments in Catholic Seminaries quadrupled during WWII since seminary students were automatically deferred. He wondered if this had anything to do with the rash of pedophilia that seemed to peek in the decades following the end of the war and appears to be abating as that generation dies off. He had serious reservations with the church’s teachings and eventually left. He said that he, like far too many of his classmates, succumbed to family pressure to firstly enter and then remain in the seminary. He said that you were put up on a pedestal and it was difficult escape the entanglement. This may be a bit off the subject, but perhaps seminary students shouldn’t be exempt if there is a military draft.

 

This is why I barely go to DU for even a chuckle anymore. Did the bombing of Pearl Harbor push a surge of cowardly pedophiles into Catholicism in this yahoo's feeble brain? Is this person suggesting that to solve the problem of "family pressure" and the "entanglement" of seminary school, the religious minded should not be exempt from governmental forced conscription?

Each sentence they produce creates the need for a logical correction orders of magnitude larger than the one that came before. It's not that they haven't learned, it's that they can't be taught. (or is it insomnia + bong water + ADD?)