Congressman wants to bring back the draft - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

Congressman wants to bring back the draft

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby knapplc » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:17 am

Every person in Israel serves two years in the military. It's not impossible, impractical, or illogical. It makes a LOT of sense to me. I just don't see it happening.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby SeaWolf » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:28 am

Flux wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:
Flux wrote:There is no realistic way, to all of a sudden, make serving mandatory.


It would have to be a phased in policy... It couldn't be something that you applied immediately to everyone who was about to turn 18... You would have to set a date, and say, "Any able bodied male born after this date will be required to serve in the military from their 18th birthday until their 20th birthday."


I understand the phasing part, but I believe this Congressman wants anyone aged 18-42 to serve 2 years. Thats just a huge influx of people and the logistics and tracking of it all, would be extremely pricey


I do not support what this congressman wants. Most military people don't serve until they are 42, that's when you retire from the armed forces. As I seaid before it should be set up so that you either serve 2 years after high school or 2 years after you leave college.
Image
Sporting events are family events. If you can't watch your language for 3 hours then stay home.
SeaWolf
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4620
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Time to FEED THE BEAST!

Postby SeaWolf » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:29 am

Plindsey88 wrote:
josebach wrote:Requiring every person in the country to serve in the military is very unrealistic.... especially for two full years. Any idea what that would do to our defense budget? I don't think there's enough jobs to even go around. The reason why they have mandatory service in other countries is because they have a shortage of people. That's not a problem in the United States.


I'm sure there would be exceptions to the rule... For starters, I disagree with mandatory service for women... So, that eliminates about 52% of the eligible population... Then you would have to make exceptions for the disabled... That's another significant chunk of folks...

And, for the record, I think it would actually not have a huge impact on the defense budget... Right now, enlistment bonuses for new recruits are about $20,000 per recruit... Mandatory service would eliminate those... If service were mandatory from the time a person is 18 until they are 20, then we would also greatly reduce the money the military has to spend on caring for soldier's families, as most people do not have dependents when they're 18 years old...


Why not incude women? Just curious.
Image
Sporting events are family events. If you can't watch your language for 3 hours then stay home.
SeaWolf
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4620
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Time to FEED THE BEAST!

Postby Plindsey88 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:37 am

SeaWolf wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:
josebach wrote:Requiring every person in the country to serve in the military is very unrealistic.... especially for two full years. Any idea what that would do to our defense budget? I don't think there's enough jobs to even go around. The reason why they have mandatory service in other countries is because they have a shortage of people. That's not a problem in the United States.


I'm sure there would be exceptions to the rule... For starters, I disagree with mandatory service for women... So, that eliminates about 52% of the eligible population... Then you would have to make exceptions for the disabled... That's another significant chunk of folks...

And, for the record, I think it would actually not have a huge impact on the defense budget... Right now, enlistment bonuses for new recruits are about $20,000 per recruit... Mandatory service would eliminate those... If service were mandatory from the time a person is 18 until they are 20, then we would also greatly reduce the money the military has to spend on caring for soldier's families, as most people do not have dependents when they're 18 years old...


Why not incude women? Just curious.


It's a southern thing... You wouldn't understand... ;-)
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Redskins Win » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:44 am

Question: those that will turn or have turned 18 recently or can remember, do you still have to register at the post office, in case of a draft?
Image[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Redskins Win
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8272
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Plindsey88 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:46 am

Redskins Win wrote:Question: those that will turn or have turned 18 recently or can remember, do you still have to register at the post office, in case of a draft?


Registering for selective service is still mandatory, but I think the days of going down to the Post Office have gone the way of the dinosaur... Like everything else, most people register online, now...

(I had to register in '95 at the Post Office, but my cousin just registered a few weeks ago, and he did it online.)
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby josebach » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:01 pm

knapplc wrote:Every person in Israel serves two years in the military. It's not impossible, impractical, or illogical. It makes a LOT of sense to me. I just don't see it happening.


There are just over 6,000,000 people in Israel. There are 300,000,000 people in the United States. What percentage of the United States citizens serve in the military? What percentage of Israeli citizens serve in the miltary? By saying this Israeli's policy makes sense, you're implying that the percentages should be the same in both countries. How is this not impossible, impractical or illogical? How does it make a LOT of sense when our military's personnel requirements during non war times are for the most part already met? :-?
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby SeaWolf » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:10 pm

josebach wrote:
knapplc wrote:Every person in Israel serves two years in the military. It's not impossible, impractical, or illogical. It makes a LOT of sense to me. I just don't see it happening.


There are just over 6,000,000 people in Israel. There are 300,000,000 people in the United States. What percentage of the United States citizens serve in the military? What percentage of Israeli citizens serve in the miltary? By saying this Israeli's policy makes sense, you're implying that the percentages should be the same in both countries. How is this not impossible, impractical or illogical? How does it make a LOT of sense when our military's personnel requirements during non war times are for the most part already met? :-?


We ARE at war with Terrorisim and don't forget Iraq.
Image
Sporting events are family events. If you can't watch your language for 3 hours then stay home.
SeaWolf
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4620
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Time to FEED THE BEAST!

Postby stomperrob » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:31 pm

From today's NY Times:

Editorial
Rejecting the Draft

Published: November 21, 2006
There are many reasons why we are distressed to hear that Representative Charles Rangel of New York plans to reintroduce his annual measure aimed at resurrecting the draft when the Democrats take control of the House in January. We don’t favor military conscription in general. And in this particular case, compelling military service won’t achieve the things Mr. Rangel says he wants, either.

Mr. Rangel wants to replenish an Army that is in critical condition, make the armed services more equitably representative of American society as a whole, and find a way to prevent future presidents from embarking on military misadventures. Those are laudable goals, but not ones the nation can achieve by bringing back the draft.

Even if the draft was a good idea, it would be politically impossible to achieve. Members of Congress are well aware that their constituents oppose it. This White House has never been willing to ask the American public to do anything but accept more tax cuts; it’s hardly going to embrace something as difficult and unpopular as military conscription.

But the idea is flawed as well. Because of the dire situation in Iraq, the Army is indeed having trouble meeting its yearly quota of 80,000 recruits. Yet military leaders nevertheless oppose a draft. They believe you don’t get a highly skilled Army by forcing people to serve against their will, and they are right.

The draft would not demonstrate to young people that everyone must do his or her fair share. It is more likely to convince them that the demand for sacrifice is made mainly on those too poor to avoid it. The volunteer force in Iraq has been a truer cross section of America than the force created under the last draft, which ended in 1973, before the end of the Vietnam War. The wealthy and well-connected could get deferments then or assignments to safe alternatives, and many did. While there are plenty of underprivileged in the current force, at least they are there by their own choosing.

The problem with the draft does not lie in the fact that it requires young people to spend some time contributing to the nation’s well-being before they embark on their life careers. We wish the president had called for such sacrifices after Sept. 11, 2001, when so many Americans were aching to contribute.

For those young people who do not feel moved by patriotism or propelled by economics to enlist in the military, there should be other options for national service — like AmeriCorps. These programs need money and attention. Some of the potential candidates for president in 2008 have said the United States should require all young people to devote a year or two to service after high school or college, and that idea should be debated during the upcoming campaign.

But the urgency of the Army’s current needs requires a different solution. There are many ways for the armed services to meet their recruitment goals outside of general conscription. After all, the Army’s annual quota of 80,000 recruits is barely a drop in the ocean of some 60 million Americans between 18 and 35. Forcing the issue, with a draft, is no solution.
Image
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
stomperrob
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13579
(Past Year: 138)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Steeler Nation!!!

Postby BlueBandit24 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:48 pm

Redskins Win wrote:Question: those that will turn or have turned 18 recently or can remember, do you still have to register at the post office, in case of a draft?


You get a draft card in the mail, and you are required to fill it out. If you don't, you forfeit your rights to things like financial aid and other things of the like.
Image
BlueBandit24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 5373
Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 17:39 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact