• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If The Draft Was Reinstated Would You Favor College Deferrments?

Oozlefinch said:
So what? What does that even mean or matter?

I had 2 relatives serve in Vietnam. Neither one was wounded or killed.

Now for some reality. The death rate in Vietnam was 0.5%. In other words, by averages in order to have a single politician son die in Vietnam, there would have to be 200 of them serving in the theater.

Now being wounded, the odds are greatly increased. To a whopping 3%. That means that by averages, 34 politicians would have to have sent their sons there.

Over 96% of soldiers who deployed to Vietnam were never killed or injured. And you are whining that politician sons were not part of that minimal 3%?

Statistics are some amazing things. You can twist them to support almost anything you want.

Here are some commonly passed around. 25% of those in Vietnam were drafted, and 30% of those killed in Vietnam were draftees.

Well, conversely, that means 75% of those in Vietnam enlisted.

And here is another statistic. Of all the Draftees during Vietnam, Only 35% were sent to Vietnam. 65% of them stayed in the US. That is because draftees only have to serve a 2 year term. By the time most finish their schooling, it was not worth the effort to send them over. But there were plenty of jobs stateside for them to do.
Click to expand...

Whining? Lighten up. Fortunate sons skated. The system was designed for it. If the draft had been equal to all able bodied Americans of draft age and fortunate sons couldn’t have skated once drafted I doubt seriously we’d have gone to Vietnam.

I continue to advocate for a draft, an equal draft including women. I continue to advocate for the nullification of the War Powers Act. If everyone faces equal sacrifices we’d be much less likely to be involved in actions to make the world safe for billionaires. Using your statistics what does anyone have to lose?
 
faithful_servant said:
They should be allowed to finish college in their currently chosen field of study (4 years max) and then upon graduation, they are enlisted into the military. TRUE deferment, not the "Get out of jail free" card that deferment became.
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:
Remember, deferment is not the same as not serving.

The idea of a deferment is that after such a person gets their degree, they become officers. Having a college degree is a requirement to be an officer, and we need more of them also, not just enlisted. So once they get their degree, they are drafted and go to a commissioning program.

It is called a deferment for a reason, not an exemption.

de·fer·ment

/dəˈfərmənt/

noun

noun: deferment; plural noun: deferments

the action or fact of putting something off to a later time; postponement.
Click to expand...


Early on in Rotc when you signed up you were given the rank of private so you could be activated at any time. It also meant that if you dropped out of college you had to go on active duty as a private. It was also meant to discourage the playboys joining Rotc to avoid the draft, i.e., if your grades fell below standard you could be shipped out on active duty or be sent to meet your draft board. Same for deferments. Then came WW II and 15 million Americans in the armed forces so all of that got lost in war legislation and in the post war demobilization. WW II disappeared those laws and the laws stayed disappeared. During Trump's bone spurs battles the Vietnam war was too controversial and unpopular for Congress or Potus to revive the previous laws that made you a private no matter what, Rotc or a deferment. Any return to conscription would need a concomitant return to these laws, yes. There's precedent for 'em to be reinstated.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Meanwhile, the military has leaned republican for the past 50 years.

What a load of crap.
Click to expand...

That is simply because of the demographics of those who serve.

The military is anti-drug, requires a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, and requires people to follow orders.

Something that far to many on "the left" are unable to do for one reason or another. If you take 25 young Conservatives and ask what percentage consider joining the military, the percentage is going to be much higher than that of young Liberals. The percentages are skewed simply because of those who join in the first place.

Rexedgar said:
How cavalierly you discuss death and wounding in the Viet Nam conflict. Reminds me of the stated casualties on UTAH Beach in JUN1944, less than 150, not bad unless you found yourself a statistic.....all relative.
Click to expand...

Cavalierly? Trust me, I do not at all. But there is no denying the facts that the odds of dying in Vietnam (like the odds of being killed by a gun in the US now) are very low.

You have a higher percentage chance (by almost 5 to 1) of dying in a plane crash then by being killed by a gun. You have an over 2 times chance of dying in a bicycle accident then you do in being killed by a gun. You are almost 5 times more likely to die from a drug overdose than you are to being killed by a gun.

Those are facts, sorry if you do not like facts. Fact is, even during a war like we have been in, the odds of death in the military are exceedingly low. More college students die every year than all the deaths in the military (including accidents and combat casualties). Military does not even qualify as one of the 10 deadliest jobs in the country. That is even factoring in things like off-duty accidents and suicide (where as civilian statistics are skewed since they only record on the job deaths).

So I am not sorry that I refuse to politicize military deaths. Apparently that is all that counts to you.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It should always depend on the circumstances. If all hell breaks loose, it could become necessary to reinstate the draft for the sake of this nation's survival. Having said that, I prefer an all volunteer military as we end up with a more professional and motivated force.
Click to expand...

i also prefer an all volunteer military.
 
Deferments? Only those in enrolled at service academies should granted a deferment. For others, no.
 
Rich2018 said:
I fully support the draft but would make two amendments:

1. All US citizens must serve. Females don't get a pass.

2. If a draftee doesn't want to join the military, he/she will be assigned to a non-military function.
Click to expand...
I think a deferment if actively enrolled and within a year of completion of degree sounds reasonable to me. If you are currently enrolled in medical school - pass ---- but expect a letter upon graduation

I agree, men and women.

And frankly if we did have to institute a draft prior to going into Iraq....anybody think they would have looked harder at the evidence for WMD ???I do.
 
If the draft was reinstated, it would provide the opportunity for many more Americans to become war criminals/terrorists.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It should always depend on the circumstances. If all hell breaks loose, it could become necessary to reinstate the draft for the sake of this nation's survival. Having said that, I prefer an all volunteer military as we end up with a more professional and motivated force.
Click to expand...


In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
 
Tangmo said:
In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
Click to expand...

As per usual your lack of actual knowledge on any topic pertaining to the military is extremely lacking.
 
Tangmo said:
In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
Click to expand...
Alot of points in that post to address in a moment on a cellphone. Will respond in greater detail tonight.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Helix said:
i also prefer an all volunteer military.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the world will maintain enough of the peace to prevent a WW3 scenario and we can keep going with an all volunteer force.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
I think people should only be forced to join the military in the event of an invasion, and at that point everybody needs to join....men, women, students, old people....
 
rhinefire said:
For me attending college should not be a reason to not serve if called in the future.
Click to expand...

I was active duty, and would prefer to serve next to someone who wants to be there rather than forced. BTW conscription will never happen in this country again. Modern technology and smart weapons have made this thread rather obsolete.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Hopefully the world will maintain enough of the peace to prevent a WW3 scenario and we can keep going with an all volunteer force.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If there is a WWIII, it seems unlikely that there will be a winner.
 
Helix said:
If there is a WWIII, it seems unlikely that there will be a winner.
Click to expand...
Not if it goes nuclear.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Old Trapper said:
That is changing among the enlisted, and even among the officer corp. In time people do get tired of being used for cannon fodder so people like Cheney can draw huge profits. I am sorry that the main body of the military hasn't learned they do not have to obey unConstitutional orders.
Click to expand...

How many Democrats voted yes?
 
RetiredUSN said:
How many Democrats voted yes?
Click to expand...

In the Senate it was 49 Republicans (1 voted no), and 28 Democrats. In the House it was 215 Republicans for, 81 Dems for, with 6 Republicans against, and 126 Democrats.

Now, since I did not mention a Party in particular, how many made millions off the war as Cheney, and others, did?
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
Click to expand...

braindrain said:
As per usual your lack of actual knowledge on any topic pertaining to the military is extremely lacking.
Click to expand...


Kindly don't take being blown away by the post personally or professionally. The post was anyway in reply to another poster. I wrote a strategic view and an operationally analytical post. Which is to say way above your pay grade. Considerably so in fact.

The Command Sergeant Major of the Army John Wayne Troxell (real name) has a master degree in strategic assessments and he is a graduate of NCO command programs at the National Defense University and also of the Army War College. CSM Troxell also has the same seminars on national security and strategy in his professional development as generals have -- that is, from Harvard, Columbia, Princeton and the like.

Many posters here are retired career NCO who after retirement went to a four year degree granting institution. Whether a retired career guy is politically right or left his subsequent college education promotes a good deal of discussion that is often thoughtful and at a higher plane. The NCO career experience also provides a valued perspective in matters of policy, programs, strategy, force composition and strength, and more. In this instance the thread is focused on conscription which, while many here never experienced it is nonetheless clearly understood by the many and comprehended as a national defense policy, strategy, posture. So my bottom line reply to your post that is written as an active duty sergeant must needs be that there are sergeants and there are sergeants. Sergeant.
 
rhinefire said:
For me attending college should not be a reason to not serve if called in the future.
Click to expand...

If our country was actually attacked and our country was in danger of being taken over by another county then there should be no deferments of any kind for a draft. Every man and woman 18 years of age or older should be called to active duty.I don't give a rats ass they claim to be a *****fist, claim their religion forbids them from going to war,going to school or some other reason that was in the past that was allowed to let people weasel out of military service.
 
Cameron said:
I think people should only be forced to join the military in the event of an invasion, and at that point everybody needs to join....men, women, students, old people....
Click to expand...


Sorry but that's saying let's not have a sheriff and deputies until the James Gang shows up at the town line then let's assemble everyone in the county, arm 'em all, equip 'em and train 'em, transport 'em in, get the ammo and MRE stocks handed out and yell charge. All on the same day if not the hour. By the time you got on your horse to raise the first cry the James' would already be riding out of town with their complete haul -- to include all the women. Fast forwarding one thinks too of Poland 1939. Hell in 1967 it took the Israeli nation in ready reserve six dayze to set the Arabs back 500 years. You sound instead like you want to repel the Russians, Chinese and Iranians together from scratch and on a stopwatch.
 
I am 100% against the draft but if it were instituted there should be no deferments other than medical, and it should include women as well.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I am 100% against the draft but if it were instituted there should be no deferments other than medical, and it should include women as well.
Click to expand...


The day the draft died it wuz cremated just to be sure. We join you in knowing why. A reinstatement of conscription would necessarily and absolutely need to include virtually everyone eligible. Which means nearly everyone eligible would oppose it. Many not included would join the opposition anyway. Indeed no one can ever put the ashes back together again. Not everyone wants to regardless, as your post among many indicates.
 
Tangmo said:
In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.
Click to expand...

That is an overly pessimistic view. Even if WW3 does at some point break out, there is no guarantee that it would escalate to nuclear much less escalate to it. As others have already pointed out, there is no winner in an all out nuclear first world nuclear powers understand that. That's why M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) has prevented a holocaust so far.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)
Click to expand...

You are actually wrong on all counts. You clearly do not understand the difference between how Afghanistan is fought and how a conventional world war three would be fought. To win any conventional war in a timely manner, we must be willing to do what is necessary to hold onto the gains that are won on the battlefield, just as we did in the last world war. We are not doing that in Afghanistan. We win the vast majority of victories and then the Taliban slips back over the border into Pakistan, regroups and re-arms. To really win in Afghanistan, we should let Pakistan know that either they should stop the border crossings or we will. We also have very limited rules of engagement. Vietnam was fought in a similar manner. prime North Vietnamese military targets were taken off limits for the sake of a group of pampered assholes holding impotent peace talks in Paris.

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.
Click to expand...

Not going to comment on all of that. It's speculation.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
Click to expand...

Again, wrong on all counts. We have the most able and professional military force on the planet And we would not need half a million troops to win in Afghanistan. Less then half that can actually get the job done. We would just need to turn them loose and let them get the job done without micromanaging it in Washington D.C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom