Is an all volunteer army a bad thing?

[spudea]

My god man, we've got a GOP candidate promising more wars, and he is winning the nomination. We can only reason that not enough people understand the cost of war. How can they be educated? By exposing each and every one of them to war! STOP hiding behind the volunteer army!

I'm arguing that the principle of an all volunteer army is not promoting an understanding of needless, unconstitutional wars.

Would we so easily enter wars that would involve every man 17 and older?

Would politicians so easily send our troops around the world if their sons and daughters were in harms way?

Recruiters specifically target the lower rungs of society. Is this any different than slavery? Those in power, manipulate the unfortunates to do their dirty work, all the while spreading propaganda about patriotism and protecting freedom.

Should conservatives support a draft?

Vietnam ended because of public opinion. The entire nation had sons, that could die at any time. This empowered enough people to influence the government to end the war. Same with Korea

But today, public opinion means nothing because most people are content sitting on their butts. They may disagree with the war, but they arn't supporting a Pro Peace candidate because the wars haven't effected them directly with the loss of a family member.

Ron Paul's Pro Peace message fell on deaf ears... because so few understand what it means to die in vain or lose a loved one in vain.

[OptionsTrader]

A mandatory draft supposes that the government owns my life and it does not, I own my life.

[pcosmar]

Should conservatives support a draft?

Hell NO!!!
There should not be a standing Army in the first place.
If the nation needs defending, Call up the militia. (every armed American).
IF the threat is real, no draft would be necessary.

[spudea]

Hell NO!!!
There should not be a standing Army in the first place.
If the nation needs defending, Call up the militia. (every armed American).
IF the threat is real, no draft would be necessary.

oh course no standing army.

who determines if the threat is real? Dirty politicians.

Call up "every armed American" is a draft.


A mandatory draft supposes that the government owns my life and it does not, I own my life.

Look at it the other way. A draft limits the power of government. The people own the government, and we will not go to war unless every man, woman, and child is willing to lay their lives on the line. We the people determine the real threats! Just as we in the revolution have determined that the Neocons and socialists are the real threat facing america.

[OptionsTrader]

I tend to agree with pcosmar that if we are truly ever in real danger, every able bodied man and woman would enlist to defend the homeland. I am in my thirties and I would join the military again if we were invaded. I fail to see any reason for a mandatory draft.

I would volunteer if I felt it was necessary but I would protest with every last breath against a compulsory draft because the government does not own my life.

[familydog]

Hell NO!!!
There should not be a standing Army in the first place.
If the nation needs defending, Call up the militia. (every armed American).
IF the threat is real, no draft would be necessary.

How exactly would that work?

[spudea]

but I would protest with every last breath against a compulsory draft because the government does not own my life.

The problem is we need more people protesting with every last breath needless wars. Mandatory service would FORCE every last eligible voter to understand the facts and dread that is Americans dieing in vain for something that has nothing to do with our national security.

Currently, Joe Beergut America is perfectly fine with sending other peoples sons and daughters to die, if it means he can continue to watch his shows on TV and eat fast food every night.

[pcosmar]

Advice from the founders.

None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army”
Thomas Jefferson

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
James Madison

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

And there are more, many more.

[spudea]

Ron Paul's Pro Peace message fell on deaf ears... because so few understand what it means to die in vain or lose a loved one in vain.

[spudea]

OK ALREADY! JEEZ!

I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT A STANDING ARMY!

I'm saying that we as a nation go to war TOGETHER, instead of the 1% that are manipulated into believeing the propaganda of the elite.

This would empower us! We could tear down the propaganda and lies of the warmongers!

[familydog]

Advice from the founders.







And there are more, many more.

Ah of course. How silly was I for not knowing. Consider me enlightened in my question I asked you.

[spudea]

Advice from the founders.







And there are more, many more.

Did the founders ever envision that the president could hold the sole power to send our children to fight needless wars, build bases in 130 countries, and destroy our civil liberties?

[familydog]

OK ALREADY! JEEZ!

I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT A STANDING ARMY!

I'm saying that we as a nation go to war TOGETHER, instead of the 1% that are manipulated into believeing the propaganda of the elite.

This would empower us! We could tear down the propaganda and lies of the warmongers!

Well, when the entire nation has been united in a war effort, the wars did seem to go much better.

[spudea]

Well, when the entire nation has been united in a war effort, the wars did seem to go much better.

Well when we weren't fighting communism, we did seem to stay out of the affairs of other nations, as well as not having an empire or bases all over the world.

Vietnam war ended because of public opinion (the draft limited the powers of the president and congress to let more men and women die in vain)

Same with korea.

But today, public opinion means nothing because most people are content sitting on their butts. They may disagree with the war, but they arn't supporting a Pro Peace candidate because the wars haven't effected them directly with the loss of a family member.

[pcosmar]

OK ALREADY! JEEZ!

I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT A STANDING ARMY!

I'm saying that we as a nation go to war TOGETHER, instead of the 1% that are manipulated into believeing the propaganda of the elite.

This would empower us! We could tear down the propaganda and lies of the warmongers!

It is only possible for tyrants to take us into unnecessary wars because we DO Have a standing Army. If we had none we could not invade anyone.
The people would be the defense of this land.

This was warned against, but the warning was ignored.

[spudea]

you're not getting it... it is only possible for tyrants to take us into unnecessary wars because too few people STAND UP and recognize the dangers of unnecessary war... Volunteer army lets too many people SIT DOWN and let other people die to protect their freedoms.

[spudea]

pcosmar are you even reading my responses? How do you explain how Vietnam and Korea ended? Do you actually think we WANTED to lose those wars?

[Danke]

pcosmar are you even reading my responses? How do you explain how Vietnam and Korea ended? Do you actually think we WANTED to lose those wars?

You are making the argument that the ends justify the means, whereas he is standing on principle. (and he is offline)

[spudea]

I'm arguing that the principle of an all volunteer army is not promoting an understanding of needless, unconstitutional wars.

If going to war meant everyone standing up together, it is far more likely to be in defense of this nation, and not unnessesary empire building. Pcosmar seems to hold the same view with his militia comments, yet contradics himself saying that its ok if people sit on their asses while american men and women die in vain. How many "militia" are dedicating their lives to defending the american soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan? The current status of the american militia is in rags, while we let tyrants subvert the rule of law and take us into needless wars.

"There can be no real peace, while one american is dieing someplace in the world for the rest of us" - Ronald Reagan

See I can quote significant people too....

The question is, how do we get the majority of americans to see this TRUTH???

If the voice of Ron Paul can't get through to these people, WHAT CAN???

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

The men and women overseas aren't doing a thing to protect the U.S., as difficult as it is to digest that.

And assuming that the people not volunteering in the military are just "sitting on their asses" is really unfair, and an assumption ancillary to a militaristic culture. It's the people willing to take the risks to start businesses, who educate themselves, and who invent things and bring ideas to the table that we should be most concerned with. Unfortunately the meaningless "support our troops" banter has ensured that they've been forgotten.

[familydog]

The question is, how do we get the majority of americans to see this TRUTH???

Rep. Charlie Rangel tried to answer this question by proposing a draft himself.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

He voted against his own bill and simply proposed it as a statement. The same message you are saying, which is certainly valid. If everyone had to participate in the war effort in some way, we would be less likely to go off to war. Neocons had a field day with it and marginalized his message.

While I am opposed to any kind of draft, I see what you are saying. I'm afraid I don't have the answer.

[spudea]

I know the current wars are not in the defense of the US. Thats the whole point. People sit back and let the volunteer army do its thing. Totally buying into the propaganda.

However, if each of us knew our lives were directly on the line, would we continue to accept the spoon fed propaganda, or would most people directly question every aspect and reasoning behind the war?

[pinkmandy]

If going to war meant everyone standing up together, it is far more likely to be in defense of this nation, and not unnessesary empire building.

That's true. So there should be no standing army, only armed citizens of the militia who stand up when attacked. Service cannot be mandated to this group and they will only fight when there is a real threat. No army. No navy. No Air Force. In this situation, we avoid wars because the govt doesn't have "soldiers" at its disposal to ship all over the world at the drop of a hat. Going to war would be debated among the people, not among the military commanders alone.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

However, if each of us knew our lives were directly on the line, would we continue to accept the spoon fed propaganda, or would most people directly question every aspect and reasoning behind the war?Yes, we would. Only a percentage proportional to the number of volunteer soldiers who dare to speak up about the military's wrongdoings. Which is to say, dangerously few. Better to allow those who are smart enough to stay the hell out do so, so they can take the fight to the streets where their voices can truly be heard.

[Danke]

That's true. So there should be no standing army, only armed citizens of the militia who stand up when attacked. Service cannot be mandated to this group and they will only fight when there is a real threat. No army. No navy. No Air Force. In this situation, we avoid wars because the govt doesn't have "soldiers" at its disposal to ship all over the world at the drop of a hat. Going to war would be debated among the people, not among the military commanders alone.

That is why they have to reauthorize the spending on the Army every 2 years. So, technically it is not a standing Army, but it always gets the funding to continue. The Navy is a different matter, and its continuance was seen as necessary (the Air Force, of course, didn't exist yet).

[spudea]

armed citizens of the militia who stand up when attacked. Service cannot be mandated to this group and they will only fight when there is a real threat. No army. No navy. No Air Force. In this situation, we avoid wars because the govt doesn't have "soldiers" at its disposal to ship all over the world at the drop of a hat. Going to war would be debated among the people, not among the military commanders alone.

How good could a militia be at defending this nation? This isn't sparta. My profession is banker/accountant. I've never touched a gun in my life. Sure we could hand everyone a glock, but who could actually hit a target 100ft away? Effective defense requires training forces. Strong national security needs leaders to designate threats and mandate troop movements. But we need a way to control our leaders, to not sacrifice americans needlessly.

You expect everyone to take the individual responsibility to train themselves effectively for adequate defense? Ready to go at a moments notice. This assumes a constant state of alertness and suspision of threats. There would be no peace. No thanks, I have the freedom to choose my lesiure activities. But if the nation spoke and supported a draft, and designated a threat, I would stand up, recieve professional training, and go defend this great nation.

[spudea]

Better to allow those who are smart enough to stay the hell out do so, so they can take the fight to the streets where their voices can truly be heard.

Thats worked so great these past 8 years. No, the evidence suggests that most are content letting other people die in vain. Or they blindly believe the lies supporting the war.

Yet... the vietnam war was ended, Korea war was ended, because mandatory service effected enough people to influence policy.

[spudea]

My god man, we've got a GOP candidate promising more wars, and he is winning the nomination. We can only reason that not enough people understand the cost of war. How can they be educated? By exposing each and every one of them to war! STOP hiding behind the volunteer army!

[AutoDas]

Just make it a law for any person that votes for war to have their family drafted.

[pcosmar]

Did the founders ever envision that the president could hold the sole power to send our children to fight needless wars, build bases in 130 countries, and destroy our civil liberties?

Yes they envisioned it, and expected the citizens to drag the criminal out to the nearest tree and hang him.

[pcosmar]

How exactly would that work?

There is provision in the constitution.
However, a call for anything but defense (foreign invasion,conquest) would likely be rejected.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s15.html

[pcosmar]

pcosmar are you even reading my responses? How do you explain how Vietnam and Korea ended? Do you actually think we WANTED to lose those wars?

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but you are missing the point.
We were involved in those actions BECAUSE we had an ARMY. If we had no Army we would not have been involved. There was no threat of invasion.
There would have had to been a "Call to Arms" and good reason presented to the People.

We have gotten far from our Founding Principals, and long before these events.

I'm arguing that the principle of an all volunteer army is not promoting an understanding of needless, unconstitutional wars.
Any standing Army is a threat to our freedom, without it,there would be NO needless war.
The Draft and mandatory service are contrary to the principals the country was founder on.
The Militia IS an all volunteer army. The whole of the people.

[Alex Libman]

An army is like a stolen gun. Whether you steal it only from the taxpayers (who pay for it either way) or from involuntarily-drafted recruits as well (who of course put up much more than just money), it's still theft. Now some would argue that this is justified in a time of crisis, when a nation of content citizens is being invaded by an evil force and needs to defend itself. But this clearly isn't the case in all wars the U.S. has fought since the early 1800s. (U.S. blockaded Japan for its own imperial interests in the region and pretty much forced it into war.)

[Conza88]

If you think a country is going to invade the US, you're delusional - even considering it is retarded...

You think China would be able to occupy the states? Shot not trying to conquer the Bronx or where ever. 2nd amendment is there for a reason. America's national security has never been in danger. NEVER. In terms of its nationhood being in jeopardy via being occupied.

[AmericaFyeah92]

to those who propose "disbanding" standing army: what do we do with all the loose nukes?

lets get realistic and practical

[James Madison]

oh course no standing army.

who determines if the threat is real? Dirty politicians.

Call up "every armed American" is a draft.



Look at it the other way. A draft limits the power of government. The people own the government, and we will not go to war unless every man, woman, and child is willing to lay their lives on the line. We the people determine the real threats! Just as we in the revolution have determined that the Neocons and socialists are the real threat facing america.

The Founders were clear in their opposition to standing armies in a time of peace. Even the God awful Federalist Papers recognized this.

[yongrel]

It beats the alternative.

[SeanEdwards]

Yeah, the founders were right when they opposed standing armies. I think it would be preferrable to fold all strategic forces under the umbrella of the Navy, and generally eliminate standing infantry forces. If substantial ground troops are needed for a conflict it should require mobilizing the militia.

I also like Gen. Smedley Butler's suggestion that declarations of war should require a vote by a limited plebiscite of combat capable citizens only. Old men shouldn't have the authority to order the young to die.

[SeanEdwards]

to those who propose "disbanding" standing army: what do we do with all the loose nukes?

lets get realistic and practical

Transferred to the Navy, which is the Constitutionally authorized permanent military organization.

[Danke]

Transferred to the Navy, which is the Constitutionally authorized permanent military organization.


The Marines.

[Nirvikalpa]

No matter what you may think, even if it was a draft of all young men and women, politicians and their sons and daughters would not be in it. They would find a way out of it.

Just like Bush did. "They didn't have my type of plane."

[familydog]

How good could a militia be at defending this nation? This isn't sparta. My profession is banker/accountant. I've never touched a gun in my life. Sure we could hand everyone a glock, but who could actually hit a target 100ft away? Effective defense requires training forces. Strong national security needs leaders to designate threats and mandate troop movements. But we need a way to control our leaders, to not sacrifice americans needlessly.

This is one of the many problems with converting to a no-standing army system. One of the many.

[pcosmar]

This is one of the many problems with converting to a no-standing army system. One of the many.

This is only a problem because we have had 70+ years of gun control and anti-gun propaganda.
A systematic disarmament of the citizens.
We are working on both of those.

[SeanEdwards]

The Marines.

Never give a nuke to a jarhead. Are you insane??

:eek:

[mediahasyou]

If a country's citizens would not fight to defend their own country as volunteers, that country deserves to die.

[familydog]

This is only a problem because we have had 70+ years of gun control and anti-gun propaganda.
A systematic disarmament of the citizens.
We are working on both of those.

So lets say tomarrow we disband our standing army. Are all these people who never cared to touch a gun before suddenly going to spend time and money buy one and train with it? This isn't frontier times when owning a gun was necessary to hunt and for protection for everyone. Many places across the country are safe enough where you don't need one. Yeah, there are many places where I'm all for carrying guns for protection, especially in the cities, but fortunately those places are in the minority.

[Nirvikalpa]

If a country's citizens would not fight to defend their own country as volunteers, that country deserves to die.

Even if you're not technically fighting for your country, you're fighting for another? Like how it is in Iraq? They're not protecting us here... even the government has said there was no relation between Iraq and Al Queda. We are fighting for their freedom, even while we are losing our own freedoms.

I would not fight for this Country if that was a war I was drafted for.

[pcosmar]

Even if you're not technically fighting for your country, you're fighting for another? Like how it is in Iraq? They're not protecting us here... even the government has said there was no relation between Iraq and Al Queda. We are fighting for their freedom, even while we are losing our own freedoms.

I would not fight for this Country if that was a war I was drafted for.

Fact. We ARE NOT fighting for their freedom. That is only propaganda.
We are not fighting for our freedom either.
We are there to control them.
Right now we are acting as the POLICE arm of the NWO.

They won't have freedom till we are gone and the people decide they want it.

[pcosmar]

So lets say tomarrow we disband our standing army. Are all these people who never cared to touch a gun before suddenly going to spend time and money buy one and train with it? This isn't frontier times when owning a gun was necessary to hunt and for protection for everyone. Many places across the country are safe enough where you don't need one. Yeah, there are many places where I'm all for carrying guns for protection, especially in the cities, but fortunately those places are in the minority.

That is why the Appleseed Shoots are training folks.
There are also local Militia training program that would expand if not for the Negative Propaganda.

In my area, guns are still quite common, and many folks hunt.
Were it not for the anti-gun propaganda, I wuld think there would be more shooting ranges, indoor as well as outdoor. Shooting sports and competition would thrive.
Many do not get into shooting simply because of the "Guns are Bad" crap that is shoved down their throats.

http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
http://www.odcmp.com/
http://www.michiganmilitia.com/index.htm
This is cool. Michigan ladies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPb7qJqv2ZE&feature=related

[SeanEdwards]

So lets say tomarrow we disband our standing army. Are all these people who never cared to touch a gun before suddenly going to spend time and money buy one and train with it? This isn't frontier times when owning a gun was necessary to hunt and for protection for everyone. Many places across the country are safe enough where you don't need one. Yeah, there are many places where I'm all for carrying guns for protection, especially in the cities, but fortunately those places are in the minority.

In Switzerland people get tested on their rifle marksmanship, and those that meet a certain qualifying standard get a tax break. Or maybe it's crappy shooters have to pay extra. I can't remember exactly. Pretty hilarious though.

[familydog]

That is why the Appleseed Shoots are training folks.
There are also local Militia training program that would expand if not for the Negative Propaganda.

In my area, guns are still quite common, and many folks hunt.
Were it not for the anti-gun propaganda, I wuld think there would be more shooting ranges, indoor as well as outdoor. Shooting sports and competition would thrive.
Many do not get into shooting simply because of the "Guns are Bad" crap that is shoved down their throats.

http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
http://www.odcmp.com/
http://www.michiganmilitia.com/index.htm
This is cool. Michigan ladies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPb7qJqv2ZE&feature=related

I have to doubt in my mind that there is anti-gun propoganda everywhere. I don't see it much around here because guns are a big deal...at least the right to have them. I'm simply suggesting that people aren't going to take the time and money to buy a gun and train with it if they don't like to/have to/care to hunt and don't need it for protection. Generally, America is a still pretty safe place, for now. In any case, like I said I agree about the propaganda.

[familydog]

In Switzerland people get tested on their rifle marksmanship, and those that meet a certain qualifying standard get a tax break. Or maybe it's crappy shooters have to pay extra. I can't remember exactly. Pretty hilarious though.

Interesting. I'd like tax breaks for my marksmanship please :D

[Primbs]

Castles, Battles, and Bombs: How Economics Explains Military History

I just read part of this book. The book covers the economics of a volunteer force and their effectiveness vs. the draft.

It is possible to have an all volunteer force with high morale fight more effectively than a drafted army with low morale that can't shoot straight and doesn't want to be there.

http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Battles-Bombs-Economics-Explains/dp/0226071634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212501314&sr=1-1

[AmericaFyeah92]

even fucking switzerland has an army, guys

[Ozwest]

Who would attack America?

Which country?

[Ozwest]

The Chinese will send their navy, the Russians will attack via Alaska?

[Ozwest]

Terrorists are the most likely to attack.

If Ron Paul were President, they would have a lot less reason to.

[roshie]

Who would attack America?

Which country?

These days, I think we're far more civilized and "globalized" so that we're not barbaric and go to other countries only to claim land. Economic issues would prevent this from happening, take over/attack America and a huge hole in the global economy will appear.

[Ozwest]

These days, I think we're far more civilized and "globalized" so that we're not barbaric and go to other countries only to claim land. Economic issues would prevent this from happening, take over/attack America and a huge hole in the global economy will appear.

Is that a "tongue-in-cheek" statement?:D

Cause I'm wondering which country is "going to other countries." ???