The draft gives every American family a dog in the fight as it should be in a free country !
For to long less then ten percent have defended this nation of 320 million ! It is past the time for every American man did their duty to God family and country !
The draft gives every American family a dog in the fight as it should be in a free country !
I would have no problem with that notion whatsoever if our so called DOD was committed exclusively to the legitimate defense of America.
I serve with some of them during Vietnam… some of them didn’t have their head into it… some didn’t have the heart … and some of them should have been in jail but got an option. I come from a long line of military and I joined at a time when I was the odd one out… I still don’t believe that for the benefits it might bring, coming into the world as a US Citizen, which I might add is far harder to get rid of than most people realize, should come with the obligation of anything other than self reliance and good behavior… Any obligation of that sort makes you a slave of the state at birth. I’m looking at this purely from a constitutional perspective.
Well… that is true IF and only IF the exceptions did not favor those capable of placing themselves and their children well out of harms way. And their will always be exceptions… religious, conscientious objector, health, special studies etc…etc…etc…
Every American man should be trained to protect his nation if call to do so ! It what men do !
I disagree being an American man comes with a responsibility to defend this nation !
I was RA when we had the draft and it’s true that a few didn’t put heart and soul into soldiering but the armed forces back in the day fully supported the line troops . Truck drivers security cooks K.P welders blacksmiths maintenance across the board just to name a few ! Those jobs were filled with soldiers that were better suited to them . There is a place for every man in America to serve our nation .
We’re getting off the subject but I believe 2yrs is to short for military service. When you consider the cost to put one person thru basic training and then Advanced Individual Training for whatever they chose ,they are close to being discharged. 3 to 4 yrs would better because of the costs involved.
That’s why we elect a government .
We’ve been doing that for a long time now. But D&R isn’t making a change.
Well… when we find a good definition to the word ‘defend’ you let me know. I think that few would disagree that the general population would step up and defend the nation when overtly provoked, it happened in both world wars.
The reason that we have a real disconnect now is that it is far to easy for the government to ‘hire’ and pay people to march off to war. At one time people who were in the reserves or national guard and had regular day jobs were called up. Moderately trained and kitted out, they were ready to be called up. Their was a danger in calling up the reserves, they were doctors, mechanics, lawyers etc… they were at home with their families and when they got called up, the communities knew… the communities were affected… now, people rarely give a thought about the deployed troops because they are only part of the military community and their families are GI families living in military enclaves… The public is detached from the reality of what the government calls up our armed forces to do… they (the general public) have no skin in the game. Ready reserves operated at the state level are the right balance and with a congress reluctant to call them up, far more people would be willing to join.
I was in combat arms and I had people next to me that I couldn’t count on to make muster sober much less cover my ass. While I agree with you in principle… I would say that a government that does not meet the expectations of the people does not have the right to expect the cooperation of its citizens… and that includes involuntary servitude. Give people a country and a cause that they believe in… and they will come and they won’t even ask for a living wage…
While you might make your comments standing under the US flag… would you feel that same way standing under the flag of N Korea… or Zimbabwe? People might have some moral duty to defend their nation but when you say that the state owns your ass to do with as it chooses, we are moving into a different kind of country.
Don’t discount your experience in combat . Human nature is what it is we have to do with what we have .
I believe every man in American deserves a chance to serve his country .
They will be better men and America will be better for it !
I’ve never seen anyone who knows as much as you don’t.
My daughter taught me a little phrase that I had never heard before but it was catchy enough to stick…
Their are a million things, you never knew, you never knew.
I try to look at problems in that light… some people not so much. We can see this clearly from the progressives who seek change for changes sake and post sayings like this as their ‘Favorite Quote’.
“Whether or not what you do has the effect you want, it will have three at least you never expected, and one of those usually unpleasant.” —Robert Jordan, The Path of Daggers
Here is a disturbing analysis in Vox about how devastating a war in Korea would be. The biggest risk to me, as outlined in the following quote from Sen. Angus King, is someone making a mistake or miscalculation. I am hoping the McMaster is truly not into the ‘bloody nose’ strategy, as it seems excessively risky, and predicated on an internal inconsistency, i.e. if Kim is so irrational that we need to take out his nukes, then expecting him to be rational enough not to use them when being given a ‘bloody nose’ seems logically flawed.
“I have queasy feeling that we’re in 1914 stumbling towards Sarajevo,” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last September, a reference to the assassination of an Austrian archduke that triggered the devastation of World War I. “And what worries me is not an instantaneous nuclear confrontation, but an accidental escalation based upon the rhetoric that’s going back and forth.”
I too read this Vox article and I too hear the similarity between the Trump Admin rhetoric about Korea and the Bush Admin rhetoric about Iraq. The theme of both is: this is a problem and we need to go in and get it solved–once and for all. Similarly, the 2nd and 3rd level consequences of a strike are underestimated to the point of making them disappear. I am very scared.
It was good to be reminded that North Korea also has chemical and biologic weapons, as well as more conventional artillery. It was good to be reminded that they used a very toxic chemical in assassinating the relative of Kim in an airport–and that this meant that they not only had the substance, but had developed technology for getting if moved around in “normal looking” ways that also protected the people carrying out the attack.
There are tunnels into South Korea and ADF would assume that very bad chem and bio weapons, and North Korean networks, are already in place. These weapons can be carried around in a back pack.
In terms of diplomacy, I start to think about South Korean leadership which has staked its survival on our protection. It is now confronted with 2 apparent madmen, one of whom is in the region. While Kim is willing to waste and starve his population in order to keep his dynasty going, if there is a conflict, his country will be one of the two or three that is devastated. The US also has a madman but, if our madman acts, the damage out our country will be a fraction of what happens to South Korea.
This "bloody nose’ talk is the talk of a madman. If you forget the conventional weapons, the chem weapons, and the bio weapons, and the cyber weapons, the dotards who are advancing it don’t even claim it will destroy all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons. Instead it is some sort of playground act that appears designed to please Trump’s base.
To me, some of the information content in withdrawing Victor Cha is that he apparently thought that what was good for South Korea was important to include in the conversation. When we hear about the “bloody nose” we don’t hear about South Korean involvement.
As David Frum says, once Trump showed us to be an unreliable ally, all of our allies are making their own arrangements.
If I were the South Korean govt, I would be leaping in a negotiation with North Korea. I hope that their govt has agency. Something like a timeline to unification, similar to what happened with Hong Kong, is likely an end game they are considering. With Trump as unreliable and ready to think of the South Koreans as props and collateral damage, does South Korea take the stance that Thailand has taken: it negotiates from a position of weakness with his more powerful neighbors? Included in its position of weakness is that, should war come, even if it thought that its population could sustain the losses needed for the US and it to occupy the North–there is still the reality that China would not allow a unified Korea, under South Korean control, on its border.
McArthur’s forgetting this was one of the fundamental miscalculations in his deciding to invade North Korea. The other miscalculation was that our armies lost many of our advantages in the North Korean terrain, some of the least hospitable on earth.
Don’t you think that China would welcome that as long as the unified country is not under the protection of the United States?
I could see South Korea engaging China to put together a treaty of sorts that brings peace to South Korea with North Korea and opens up trade with China again with North Korea.
It really does look like the best move for the people of South Korea is to tell the United States to get the fuck out of their country.
The young people in South Korea are not that keen on the U.S.
Not my experience. The US is much more attractive to the South Koreans than the three powers that surround them: China, Japan and Russia.
The most notable thing about China in South Korea is the pollution that blows in from Beijing.
These aren’t madmen. They’re like two grandmaster playing chess . Lil Kim knows he can’t fight the US and win without Communist China’s help. The US would be bogged down in a war of attrition with Communist China.
Both6 sides know the only Rational way out is through diplomacy. Both sides are this as war of wills.
Finally we have a President with the backbone not to back down from this spoiled Punk. President Trump Is just as stubborn as Lil Kim if not more so.
Thanks for catching imprecise writing. What I meant to write was that China would not accept a unified Korea if it became unified by US action, and was controlled by South Korea, which had remained a close, and controlled, US ally.
Hence, some sort of transitional treaty makes sense a large amount of sense to both Koreas, particularly the South.
The 50 year+ military standoff has worked for South Korea and has allowed it to industrialize and build a terrific modern economy. However, a war is much worse for South Korea, since it would kill millions and destroy the economy and the country’s infrastructure and leave it unable to feed itself–with the upside of war being a standoff at about where the current status quo is.
This was the outcome of the Korean War. It ended with millions dead and an armistice, which continues today, at the pre-war borders. In that war, the North was the aggressor and MacArthur tested how the Chinese would respond to US troops near their border, at a time when the Communists had just come into power and were very weak.
The “bloody nose” talk is that it is primarily about protecting Guam and CONUS, at the expense of death and destruction in South Korea.
If that happens what would prevent Communist(Red) China from continuing their military Aggression from establishing man-made military bases to invading a united Korea and reestablishing another Communist government.