Skip to comments.
Involuntary draft met with mixed opinions
- Most members of Congress do not think it will pass
The Dominion Post ^
| 6/15/2004
| Ronda Gregory
Posted on 06/15/2004 6:43:06 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Protagoras
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Men were drafted into the military unless deferred, in the fifties.
To: the_devils_advocate_666
Maybe something along those lines, but I wouldn't want alot of the welfare class that is not currently thinking about signing up, to join the rolls of the military. I would increase military pay for the grunt by 100%, taking that money from social programs.
22
posted on
06/15/2004 8:00:15 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Occam was probably right.)
To: Conservababe
Men were drafted into the military unless deferred, in the fifties.It was wrong then too.
23
posted on
06/15/2004 8:02:05 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." ...Ronald Reagan, 1981)
To: Protagoras
Wrong? An interesting word to use about the military draft. So you are not talking of what is necessary for our military readiness...but your moral objections to men being drafted for service.
To: Conservababe
To answer your question in the way that I perceive you want it answered would be to concede that we could not have military readiness without conscription.
The moral reasons stand on their own merit.
25
posted on
06/15/2004 9:06:55 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." ...Ronald Reagan, 1981)
To: Protagoras
yeah, right...so said my wife about 20 years ago...
26
posted on
06/15/2004 9:08:43 AM PDT
by
nicko
(CW3 Ret.-"Lt., you need to just unass the AO-I know what I'm doing-that goes for you too, Major...")
To: the_devils_advocate_666
Is having every high school graduate (or 18 year old) spend a year or two in the service of their country really a bad idea? No, it's not.
What are they going to do (the military doesn't need them), what's it going to cost and who's paying for it?
27
posted on
06/15/2004 9:10:06 AM PDT
by
SJackson
(They're not Americans. They're just journalists, Col George Connell, USMC)
To: the_devils_advocate_666
Somebody wants to go back to the glory days of the 60's. The main reason Viet Nam was opposed so strongly, was that it was fought mainly by draftees. The main reason the War on Terror is not, is because it is fought by volunteers.
This is a back door attack on the WOT. Only.
28
posted on
06/15/2004 9:17:30 AM PDT
by
NathanR
(California Si! Aztlan NO!)
To: NathanR
No, you are mistaken. The real objection was to the selevtive process ie the lottery and deferrments.
To: Conservababe
There was very little objection to the draft, before draftees were being sent to fight and die in Viet Nam. There was some, but compared to what came later, it was just noise.
30
posted on
06/15/2004 9:41:33 AM PDT
by
NathanR
(California Si! Aztlan NO!)
To: NathanR
You are mistaken. There was much objection to the draft. But, men did not protest on the street. They merely got married in droves to avoid the draft. And when the marriage only deferrment was eliminated, they made sure they had children to qualify for deferrment.
The really visible protests to the draft began as Vietnam geared up and all deferrments, except college students, were eliminated.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson