Printable View
Simple question
If there were a military draft, and the only way to dodge it was a real disability, so almost everyone in the land will have a personal stake.
Would it make those in power more cautious before they commit to war?
I think yes because with more having a personal stake the gut check would hold those in power more accountable.
wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I remember Viet Nam; I don't recall any guilt/gut check on the part of any politician, and don't see why there would be.
If troops are necessary, they're necessary, and contrary to what you're probably thinking, you'd have difficulty painting Iraq as an "elective" war when compared to Viet Nam, Korea, or even WWII.
I say no.
I don't really understand, how would the disability thing give almost everyone in the land a personal stake.
in past wars such as vietnam when there was a draft some were able to "dodge" or take deferments. This tended to favor the well off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If the only way to do this was a disability then most of those that dodged vietnam would not have been able to do so.
This would mean that most families in the land would have someone eligible to fight with no get out.
You would have your children, and if it came to it yourself as you are still not exactly an old man
Like the greatest sportsman of the 20th Century?:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by vidccin past wars such as vietnam when there was a draft some were able to "dodge" or take deferments. This tended to favor the well off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If the only way to do this was a disability then most of those that dodged vietnam would not have been able to do so.
This would mean that most families in the land would have someone eligible to fight with no get out.
You would have your children, and if it came to it yourself as you are still not exactly an old man
I dont think conscription would make any difference. There will always be wars.
J2, I think the American involvement in Vietnam ,Korea and WWII were 'defensive' or 'retalilation' type wars. I dont think the second Iraq war falls into either of these categories.
I did say "tended"....those with "connections" were favored alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Oh I agree there will always be wars, but the question is "Would it make those in power more cautious before they commit to war"?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I think half the problem with Iraq was that the lawmakers failed to do their duty to be fully informed before they gave their approval.
Now we have seen the reason we went in change.
Words of Mass Deception. I find that hard to believe.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI did say "tended"....those with "connections" were favored also
Oh I agree there will always be wars, but the question is "Would it make those in power more cautious before they commit to war"?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I think half the problem with Iraq was that the lawmakers failed to do their duty to be fully informed before they gave their approval.
Now we have seen the reason we went in change.
Understood, thanks for the explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccin past wars such as vietnam when there was a draft some were able to "dodge" or take deferments. This tended to favor the well off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If the only way to do this was a disability then most of those that dodged vietnam would not have been able to do so.
This would mean that most families in the land would have someone eligible to fight with no get out.
You would have your children, and if it came to it yourself as you are still not exactly an old man
Leaving aside WWII and Korea, Viet Nam is most often compared with Iraq, so I'll use that:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabLike the greatest sportsman of the 20th Century?:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I dont think conscription would make any difference. There will always be wars.
J2, I think the American involvement in Vietnam ,Korea and WWII were 'defensive' or 'retalilation' type wars. I dont think the second Iraq war falls into either of these categories.
In Viet Nam, we were (ostensibly, at least) trying to roll back/limit communism, which we deemed the evil-of-the-day.
In Iraq, we are (for the naysayers, again, ostensibly) trying to roll back/limit terrorism, the latest evil-of-the-day.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As I understand it, a lot of 'Al Queda' terrorists originated in Saudi. Was geography not one of Georges' better subjects at school?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Leaving aside WWII and Korea, Viet Nam is most often compared with Iraq, so I'll use that:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
In Viet Nam, we were (ostensibly, at least) trying to roll back/limit communism, which we deemed the evil-of-the-day.
In Iraq, we are (for the naysayers, again, ostensibly) trying to roll back/limit terrorism, the latest evil-of-the-day.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabAs I understand it, a lot of 'Al Queda' terrorists originated in Saudi. Was geography not one of Georges' better subjects at school?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
To be perfectly honest, I'd have begun in Saudi Arabia and not stopped until dinner in Istanbul.
There is/was the question about WMD, though, and no , let's not do that again. :huh:
I promise this is the last mention of WMD.:)
They could use WMD-40 to get them out of a sticky situation.:lol:
Got my coat on.:(
Yes...yes, you do. :dabs:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
No it would make them less cautious.
By forcing military knowhow on the public, in the method that they do, which enforces "patriotism" and more.
In a draft society war is more likelly due to it's publics readiness (instead of the coffee drinking and farting on chair while discussing war hypothetically draft). Ontop of which the government has enabled a bigger machine and must sustain it. Hence war is more likelly than a commercial one ( i love watching their ads).
Isreal is a good example. America's commercial advertising of the military power comes close to draft, Hollands technique is simply a non draft country.
The bigger you get the more things you hurt and the more you have to defend.
Cautious is when you cross cross the street, it means you are already taking a chance....
Yes i am one of those on standby should my gov call an emergency.
They better be cautious.
Surely there is little or no prospect of anyone outside of the UK getting that one boab.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I suspect that there are few within it who would either.
FixedQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
i say no. a draft wood supply more troops, n with our current admin im sure they'd be deployed sumwhere almost immediately. your ? seems to say that theres a difference b/t volenteers and draftees in the political/military eyes. man a bodys a body to them
If they start drafting wood, Canada's in trouble. :dabs:
:shuriken:
They could conscript(Keeping on thread) them to deal with splinter groups.
If they started drafting wood, would anyone notice the difference? :pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
That's awkward. :dabs:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx