Jim Webb supports conscription and should not be defense chief

[cindy25]

https://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-006.html

based on this, he believes in conscription

[UWDude]

https://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-006.html
based on this, he believes in conscription
You have now posted three erroneous threads.
1st you claimed a Trump advisor was advocating muslim internment camps. Not true, he was not a Trump advisor, just a Trump supporter.
Then you claimed Flynn was advocating a draft, which like Webb, is only partially true. They are only advocating it because they believe if there was one, people would be far less likely to clamor for war.
Are you even reading what you are posting? I have a feeling you are not.

[vita3]

All in all Jim Webb is a pretty solid man.

[Jesse James]

You have now posted three erroneous threads.
1st you claimed a Trump advisor was advocating muslim internment camps. Not true, he was not a Trump advisor, just a Trump supporter.
Then you claimed Flynn was advocating a draft, which like Webb, is only partially true. They are only advocating it because they believe if there was one, people would be far less likely to clamor for war.
Are you even reading what you are posting? I have a feeling you are not.
so
we're gonna send hundreds of thousands of teenagers to war to make a point???

fuck you man.

[CaptUSA]

You have now posted three erroneous threads.
1st you claimed a Trump advisor was advocating muslim internment camps. Not true, he was not a Trump advisor, just a Trump supporter.
Then you claimed Flynn was advocating a draft, which like Webb, is only partially true. They are only advocating it because they believe if there was one, people would be far less likely to clamor for war.
Are you even reading what you are posting? I have a feeling you are not.

Yeah, fuck you, man! That's the argument of the left you're making! Who are you supporting now, Charlie Rangel?!

[William Tell]

so
we're gonna send hundreds of thousands of teenagers to war to make a point???


Nah, they're going to enslave hundreds of thousands of teenagers in the name of peace. Probably about 1/3 of them will be raped.:( And we will likely end up going to war anyway but at least their slavery will be in the name of peace. :rolleyes:

[William Tell]

You have now posted three erroneous threads.
1st you claimed a Trump advisor was advocating muslim internment camps. Not true, he was not a Trump advisor, just a Trump supporter.
Then you claimed Flynn was advocating a draft, which like Webb, is only partially true. They are only advocating it because they believe if there was one, people would be far less likely to clamor for war.
Are you even reading what you are posting? I have a feeling you are not.
Cindy's right. He supports conscription. If you think that's OK based on the logic he uses do you also think making drug use punishable by the death penalty is OK if the logic is that it will cut down on overdose deaths?

If you don't oppose things based on principle there is no end to the evil you will support.

[specsaregood]

Nah, they're going to enslave hundreds of thousands of teenagers in the name of peace. Probably about 1/3 of them will be raped.:( And we will likely end up going to war anyway but at least their slavery will be in the name of peace. :rolleyes:

And as if the elites children would actually get drafted, lol. they'd make sure to put enough loop holes in so that their spawn are safe...

[oyarde]

Head of defense will not determine conscription . While there are probably many people who support it for various reasons , I cannot imagine it ever making it through both houses .

[specsaregood]

Head of defense will not determine conscription . While there are probably many people who support it for various reasons , I cannot imagine it ever making it through both houses .

why not? they will just combine it with the mandatory voluntary community service they've been pushing and it will sail through. I think you think our betters think more of our kids than they actually do.

[UWDude]

Yeah, $#@! you, man! That's the argument of the left you're making! Who are you supporting now, Charlie Rangel?!

Yes. It is to make a point, and to avoid wars.


so
we're gonna send hundreds of thousands of teenagers to war to make a point???

$#@! you man.

No. there will not be a war, because the American people will not want wars, because their necks would be on the line.

[UWDude]

Cindy's right. He supports conscription. If you think that's OK based on the logic he uses do you also think making drug use punishable by the death penalty is OK if the logic is that it will cut down on overdose deaths?

Stupid analogy.


If you don't oppose things based on principle there is no end to the evil you will support.

Did any of you even read what was written?


Yeah, $#@! you, man! That's the argument of the left you're making! Who are you supporting now, Charlie Rangel?!

Yes, I supported Charlie Rangel, when many of you were losing your minds. Because Charlie Rangel was against the wars, that is why he proposed bringing back the draft. It wasn't to actually bring back the draft. But all of you were taking it too literally, just like you are now.

[CaptUSA]

Yes. It is to make a point, and to avoid wars.


No. there will not be a war, because the American people will not want wars, because their necks would be on the line.

^This is the intellect of a Trump voter?!! WTF?! When has conscription EVER prevented a war?!!!

[UWDude]

^This is the intellect of a Trump voter?!! WTF?! When has conscription EVER prevented a war?!!!

Did you even read the article posted?

[CaptUSA]

Did you even read the article posted?
Yes! I don't think YOU did.


As a result, explains former Navy secretary James Webb, "What I worry about is that today the people who are making policy are totally dislocated, in a human way, from the people who are out there."(26) Journalist James Fallows makes a similar point. "The people who are making this decision can't imagine they are going to pay any human cost for it."(27)

That charge is simple to make but hard to prove. Neither Webb nor Fallows has presented any evidence that President Bush is prepared to send thousands of people to their deaths because his own children, or those of his friends, are not at risk. William F. Buckley, Jr., argues that the complaint that we have an army of the poor

does not justify the suggestion that decisions affecting the risk of combat will be made by men indifferent to their fate because they are themselves sons of power and affluence... ...It is simply an illusion to think that the children of power and privilege will not be able to manipulate a draft system. Even Webb acknowledges that the elite were able to avoid military service during the Vietnam War.


The suggestion that this would reduce war is entirely false and only leads to MORE government force! You should be ashamed of yourself spewing this nonsense on a Ron Paul board.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'm shocked, I actually kind of liked him before.

[CaptUSA]

I'm shocked, I actually kind of liked him before.

Probably just because of who he was standing beside. It's kinda like those ugly girls in the bar that hang out with uglier friends to make themselves appear more attractive. It's only once you get them alone that you realize what has happened. ;)

[paleocon1]

Conscription military or civilian should be resisted by force if necessary. Still the most likely source of conscription is a dem regime.

[UWDude]

The suggestion that this would reduce war is entirely false and only leads to MORE government force! You should be ashamed of yourself spewing this nonsense on a Ron Paul board.

Not even.

[UWDude]

I'm shocked, I actually kind of liked him before.

this was during the Iraq war, when Rangle proposed a bill to reinstitute the draft. It was not a real proposal, it was a "let's talk about why American support needless wars" proposal. It was never intended to pass.

But when taken out of historical context, the ideologues swoop in and warn us of dangers that only exists in their Ideologueland.

It's a fantasy boogyman.

[robmpreston]

If the choice is Jim Webb, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, I'll take Webb every single time.

[The Gold Standard]

If the choice is Jim Webb, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, I'll take Webb every single time.

Well sure. If you have to commit suicide, do it the quickest way possible. Personally, I would rather not do it at all.

[dannno]

Cindy's right. He supports conscription. If you think that's OK based on the logic he uses do you also think making drug use punishable by the death penalty is OK if the logic is that it will cut down on overdose deaths?

If you don't oppose things based on principle there is no end to the evil you will support.

lol.. that is a horrible analogy.

It would be more like, making illicit drug use punishable by death, so that people clamor to repeal all the drug laws.

The intended result to is to get rid of the drug laws, not to punish people for drug use.

The intended result of conscription, in this case, is to end the wars and prevent future wars. Whether it is effective or not is up for discussion, it's not a policy I personally support.. But I don't rabidly attack people who make the argument because they are trying to get to the same result I am, which is to end the wars.

[William Tell]

lol.. that is a horrible analogy.

It would be more like, making illicit drug use punishable by death, so that people clamor to repeal all the drug laws.
No it wouldn't. That would only be more accurate if the goal of the pro conscription crowd was to end war and end conscription. We already ended conscription, which was another evil on top of the wars that we have going on. The draft is dead, resurrecting it is a terrible idea because who knows if we could end it again. These idiots will keep it as a safety measure to ensure peace, which is absurd. Plenty of countries with a draft end up in wars.

[undergroundrr]

That's some serious 4d Chess there. Conscription stops war. Freedom is slavery.
UWDude, it's very hard not to see you as the most anti-liberty person on this board. But bless you for your candor. And I respect that here's a trump supporter speaking up for Rangel. Because heaven knows trump did, slating him to be his HUD secretary in 1999 and contributing over $20,000 to his campaigns.

[CCTelander]

this was during the Iraq war, when Rangle proposed a bill to reinstitute the draft. It was not a real proposal, it was a "let's talk about why American support needless wars" proposal. It was never intended to pass.

But when taken out of historical context, the ideologues swoop in and warn us of dangers that only exists in their Ideologueland.

It's a fantasy boogyman.


There are no "fantasy boogym[e]n" where government is concerned. Today's "fantasy boogyman" is tomorrow's real life nightmare. I've seen it happen over and over again in my 40+ years as a liberty activist.Almost every single bit of the authoritarian bullshit we suffer under today was deemed to be "fantasy boogym[e]n" at some point during that time frame.

[UWDude]

That's some serious 4d Chess there. Conscription stops war. Freedom is slavery.
UWDude, it's very hard not to see you as the most anti-liberty person on this board. But bless you for your candor. And I respect that here's a trump supporter speaking up for Rangel. Because heaven knows trump did, slating him to be his HUD secretary in 1999 and contributing over $20,000 to his campaigns.

I am pro-truth, first and foremost. I do not tolerate hysterics, hyperbole, or misdirections.
A lot of people here have a hard time with the truth. Because it reveals their goal of a Libertarian Utopia to be beyond their lifetime, and that is assuming everything went right.

[Ender]

Yes. It is to make a point, and to avoid wars.


No. there will not be a war, because the American people will not want wars, because their necks would be on the line.

What planet are you living in exactly? We've been pretty much at war since the founding of the country.

Major Military Operations Since World War II

1950-1953 Korean War

1961 Cuba

1961-1973 Vietnam War

1965 Dominican Republic

1982 Lebanon

1983 Grenada

1989 Panama

1991 Gulf War (Kuwait and Iraq)

1993 Somalia

1994 Haiti

1994-1995 Bosnia

1999 Kosovo
.
2001—2014 Afghanistan

2003—2010 Iraq War

2014–present

On August 8, 2014, the U.S. initiated military intervention against the Islamic State of Irag and the Levant (ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) with airstrikes on key targets in Iraq. The move was later named Operation Inherent Resolve and claimed the following intent: "to reflect the unwavering resolve and deep commitment of the U.S. and partner nations in the region and around the globe to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community." In Feb. 2015, President Obama sent a request for authorization for military force (AUMF) to Congress, but the measure couldn't win the necessary votes. According to the Department of Defense, 6,097 targets were damaged or destroyed as of April 23, 2015.

[UWDude]

What planet are you living in exactly? We've been pretty much at war since the founding of the country.


I am quite aware of the wars.
If you can not see why Webb, Rangle and Flynn were talking about the draft in a hypothetical way, I don't know what to tell you.


We already ended conscription

Right, btu you still have to register for the non-draft. ;)

[dannno]

That's some serious 4d Chess there. Conscription stops war. Freedom is slavery.

Here's the deal... All else equal, if Country A attacks Country B when Country B has done nothing wrong, NOBODY deserves to die - however - if innocent people are going to die, the people in Country A deserve it more than Country B. The people in Country A had a better chance at stopping the wars and putting leaders into power who wouldn't attack an innocent country.

If there is a good way to stop Country A from attacking Country B, I am ok with it. If that means conscripting innocent people in Country A so that the people stand up and decide not to go to war, then it is worth it - it may not be good for the freedom of people in Country A, but it sure as hell is good for the freedom of the people in Country B.

The question is whether or not that would be the outcome of such a decision. Certainly, conscripting the general population COULD lead to a pushback that could stop a war from happening. It is complete nonsense for you and William Tell to say this is impossible. It may not be a great strategy, but it is a potentially effective one.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with promoting this idea, but I don't throw people under the bus who suggest it. They are suggesting that people who are responsible for electing a government who has the power to go kill innocent people, and who actually do so, put their own lives on the line first rather than other innocent people overseas.

[undergroundrr]

I understand the utilitarian argument. It doesn't align with principles of individual sovereignty. To say the least.

It's emblematic of the kind of sophistry that trump inspires.

[oyarde]

Conscription military or civilian should be resisted by force if necessary. Still the most likely source of conscription is a dem regime.

I agree .

[undergroundrr]

Conscription military or civilian should be resisted by force if necessary. Still the most likely source of conscription is a dem regime.

Which is why we should be concerned about Woolsey/trump. Woolsey has been very clear about America's need to be prepared to conscript.

trump seems to be surrounding himself with this type of thinking.

Yes, trump is still a Democrat to me.

[Ender]

I am quite aware of the wars.
If you can not see why Webb, Rangle and Flynn were talking about the draft in a hypothetical way, I don't know what to tell you.



Right, btu you still have to register for the non-draft. ;)

That makes NO sense when compared to your comment I answered:


No. there will not be a war, because the American people will not want wars, because their necks would be on the line.

[Libertea Party]

Head of defense will not determine conscription . While there are probably many people who support it for various reasons , I cannot imagine it ever making it through both houses .

This^ and we're not exactly talking about a President Paul appointment. The front runners as of yesterday were Guiliani and Bolton.

If Jim Webb gets the appointment it'd be the most non-interventionist pick we've seen in 30 years. It'd be such a victory over the neo-cons who cheered and wanted a Clinton victory. I wish Webb would be Secretary of State but that's probably not in the cards...but might be in 4 years though!

I mean this guy opposed the first Iraq war (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/jim-webb-for-secretary-of-defense/):

"The debate over our role in the Persian Gulf crisis has focused on national, rather than specific military goals. The fundamental questions, upon which all others inevitably rest, have not been addressed. Why did we send such a huge contingent of ground troops in the first place? And under what conditions are we going to use them or bring them home?
Answers are not forthcoming. Military officials intimate that the question would expose tactical options. Administration officials talk in vague terms: Defense Secretary Cheney is telling us to prepare for a commitment that may take years. Others have been quoted as saying we may be there for a decade. At the same time we are being reassured, amidst many loud calls to initiate a war with Iraq, that the U.S. military commitment is wholly defensive."

He ends:

"Too much is at risk, and too many questions remain for this buildup to continue without the Administration clarifying its direction. And if offensive action is in the cards, it should be taken only after the President receives a declaration of war from the Congress."

Yeah conscription support is really bad but he's powerless to enact it and it would be shot down by Congress. On the other hand Webb would be a voice in the room on whether to go to war. Totally worth it ... plus we get to see Kristol's head explode when he hears the announcement :D

[UWDude]

That makes NO sense when compared to your comment I answered:


No. there will not be a war, because the American people will not want wars, because their necks would be on the line.


If you can not see why Webb, Rangle and Flynn were talking about the draft in a hypothetical way, I don't know what to tell you.


The whole reason why they were supporting the draft was because they believed it would hypothetically stop wars. Just like when Charles Rangel proposed the bill, and tons of people here flipped out, being completely intellectually dishonest about what the bill proposal was. It was never introduced with the intention of passing.

[dannno]

Right, btu you still have to register for the non-draft. ;)

That's a great point.. they could implement a draft at the drop of a dime, any time they wanted to..

So why not just implement it pre-emptively, so that when war comes up for discussion people are more ardently opposed and be more likely to avoid it altogether?

I'm not convinced it's a totally full-proof strategy, or that it's a good strategy, but I'm not going to pretend the idea is completely without merit.

[vita3]

"If the choice is Jim Webb, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, I'll take Webb every single time."

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[Jesse James]

"If the choice is Jim Webb, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, I'll take Webb every single time."

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
I agree.

if you say you support Webb's view on the draft, though, you are a jackass.

[CaptUSA]

"If the choice is Jim Webb, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, I'll take Webb every single time."

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Really? Are those the only choices?

Geebus, how low do we want to set the bar?! With that logic, we could get you to accept just about anybody if we float a couple worse names. "If the choice is between Satan, Hitler, and Mussolini, I'll take Mussolini every time!" :rolleyes:

[Jesse James]

Really? Are those the only choices?

Geebus, how low do we want to set the bar?! With that logic, we could get you to accept just about anybody if we float a couple worse names. "If the choice is between Satan, Hitler, and Mussolini, I'll take Mussolini every time!" :rolleyes:
obviously
he is nobodys preference, but Trump isn't going to give us a real libertarian

[Ender]

The whole reason why they were supporting the draft was because they believed it would hypothetically stop wars. Just like when Charles Rangel proposed the bill, and tons of people here flipped out, being completely intellectually dishonest about what the bill proposal was. It was never introduced with the intention of passing.

So.... the draft from 1940 to 1973 stopped wars.........

Right...........

[undergroundrr]

I'm sorry. Is there seriously not a passionate hatred of the draft on RPF anymore? Does nobody here have children?

This is a non-negotiable issue. If you even entertain an argument for conscription, then that "inalienable rights" thing means nothing to you. There's no way your belief system has any relationship to Ron Paul's.

I'm afraid this place has just plain lost its soul. The draft is worse than taxation, worse than Nazi cakes, worse than chattel slavery. My children are not cannon-fodder!!! God have mercy on anybody who thinks they are.

[CaptUSA]

I'm sorry. Is there seriously not a passionate hatred of the draft on RPF anymore? Does nobody here have children?

This is a non-negotiable issue. If you even entertain an argument for conscription, then that "inalienable rights" thing means nothing to you. There's no way your belief system has any relationship to Ron Paul's.

I'm afraid this place has just plain lost its soul. The draft is worse than taxation, worse than Nazi cakes, worse than chattel slavery. My children are not cannon-fodder!!! God have mercy on anybody who thinks they are.

Oh, but you see, it's just a 27D chess maneuver to avoid wars! Just by talking about the draft, it really worries those in power that their kids might be placed in military administration leadership positions, which while improving their political resumes, might make them feel bad... or something...

[CCTelander]

So.... the draft from 1940 to 1973 stopped wars.........

Right...........


To be fair, the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 70s is widely recognized as a major contributing factor in ending the Vietnam War. It is also widely recognized that the anti-war movement would probably not have been as large and influential, nor have encompassed individuals from such a broad spectrum of socio-political leanings had it not been for the draft.

So, while the draft didn't prevent the onset of the Vietnam War, it is likely that it was a significant contributing factor in ending that war sooner that TPTB would have preferred.

That being said, however, it doesn't even come close to being a sufficient justification for conscription. Conscription, at best, amounts to chattel slavery. At worst it amounts to a particularly despicable form of human sacrifice to the state. There exist no moral justificationsin support of such barbarism. None.

[CCTelander]

Oh, but you see, it's just a 27D chess maneuver to avoid wars! Just by talking about the draft, it really worries those in power that their kids might be placed in military administration leadership positions, which while improving their political resumes, might make them feel bad... or something...


27D Chess?!? Really? The that would mean that Trump isn't JUST a "bad-ass American" "god emperor" ( I know he's that because I read it here on RPF), but a freakin' SUPER GENIUS "bad-ass American" "god emperor"! Damn!We're so lucky to have him. /s

[undergroundrr]

To be fair, the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 70s is widely recognized as a major contributing factor in ending the Vietnam War. It is also widely recognized that the anti-war movement would probably not have been as large and influential, nor have encompassed individuals from such a broad spectrum of socio-political leanings had it not been for the draft.

So, while the draft didn't prevent the onset of the Vietnam War, it is likely that it was a significant contributing factor in ending that war sooner that TPTB would have preferred.

I don't think that's a foregone conclusion. The draft logistically allowed the US Gov to have enough "human resources" to go on as long as they wanted to. Whether people whining about it had an impact is another issue. Almost 60,000 US soldiers died in the Vietnam war. That's in contrast with less than 7,000 for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Even the Korean war resulted in almost 35,000 US dead.

It may not result in less or shorter wars, but the Fed Gov definitely treats volunteer forces much differently than conscripted ones.


That being said, however, it doesn't even come close to being a sufficient justification for conscription. Conscription, at best, amounts to chattel slavery. At worst it amounts to a particularly despicable form of human sacrifice to the state. There exist no moral justificationsin support of such barbarism. None.

I appreciate that statement very much.

[paleocon1]

Which is why we should be concerned about Woolsey/trump. Woolsey has been very clear about America's need to be prepared to conscript.

trump seems to be surrounding himself with this type of thinking.

Yes, trump is still a Democrat to me.

and you feel that hrc would be better because?

[undergroundrr]

and you feel that hrc would be better because?

No.

Edit: Bite me.

[Ender]

To be fair, the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 70s is widely recognized as a major contributing factor in ending the Vietnam War. It is also widely recognized that the anti-war movement would probably not have been as large and influential, nor have encompassed individuals from such a broad spectrum of socio-political leanings had it not been for the draft.

So, while the draft didn't prevent the onset of the Vietnam War, it is likely that it was a significant contributing factor in ending that war sooner that TPTB would have preferred.

That being said, however, it doesn't even come close to being a sufficient justification for conscription. Conscription, at best, amounts to chattel slavery. At worst it amounts to a particularly despicable form of human sacrifice to the state. There exist no moral justificationsin support of such barbarism. None.

And to be fair- JFK was ready to withdraw from Vietnam- but we all know where that went.

[Ender]

and you feel that hrc would be better because?

That's not even the point.

The election is over and now it's time to deal with actual TRUMP policies.

[PierzStyx]

Stupid analogy.

Did any of you even read what was written?

Yes, I supported Charlie Rangel, when many of you were losing your minds. Because Charlie Rangel was against the wars, that is why he proposed bringing back the draft. It wasn't to actually bring back the draft. But all of you were taking it too literally, just like you are now.

Because Rangel, like Webb, is an idiot.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

[AuH20]

Not the best source.


799703715720663040

[Jesse James]

I'm sorry. Is there seriously not a passionate hatred of the draft on RPF anymore? Does nobody here have children?

This is a non-negotiable issue. If you even entertain an argument for conscription, then that "inalienable rights" thing means nothing to you. There's no way your belief system has any relationship to Ron Paul's.

I'm afraid this place has just plain lost its soul. The draft is worse than taxation, worse than Nazi cakes, worse than chattel slavery. My children are not cannon-fodder!!! God have mercy on anybody who thinks they are.
I'm 18... hence why I am shooting so hard at him.

[Libertea Party]

obviously
he is nobodys preference, but Trump isn't going to give us a real libertarian

Exactly..this thread is entitled "Jim Webb supports conscription and should not be defense chief" not "Will a draft deter wars". I thought this thread was dead.

Jim Webb or any Trump appointment will have zero actual legal influence on the draft. It requires a vote in Congress and the last time that happened in 2003 it lost by a razor thin margin of.... 2 to 402 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Conscription_con troversies_since_2003) :p And never brought to the floor again.

Not saying it's the motivation in the title here but a lot of political games are played with this issue. See the following (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act#Universal_National_ Service_Act_of_2003):

"Observers largely believe that Rangel, knowing beforehand that the bill would never be passed by the House, introduced it only to make a point. Rangel himself argued that the point of his bill was to express his opposition to the war in Iraq. In an editorial in The New York Times, Rangel said “if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve—and to be placed in harm’s way—there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq.”

Some commentators opined that the bill figured in a "scare campaign" to convince US voters that Republicans (or specifically the White House) had secret plans to re-institute conscription after the November 2 elections. For example, John Sutherland, a columnist for The Guardian, claimed on May 31, 2004, that the bill is "currently approved and sitting in the Committee for Armed Services".[3] He further predicted that the draft itself would be implemented as early as June 15, 2005. William Hawkins, a columnist for The Washington Times, denies that the bill was ever approved and claims that when Republicans brought it to the floor on October 5, it was for the express purpose of killing it.".[4]"

While Webb/Flynn (like other Trump appointments) has issues this imo is not a main one. And any answer will probably just be used as a political tool by one side or the other... most likely Democrats saying Trump is going to re-institute the draft to drive down his approval numbers. It bears no influence on a draft actually happening. See the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/military.htm):

Do you think the United States should return to the military draft at this time or not?"

2/24-27/16
Yes No Unsure
% % %

20 79 1

Bottom line: Webb is the best available of Trump's choices and should be defense chief under a Trump Administration. Maybe Secretary of State down the line. Dismissing him over something for which he can't influence and not taking into consideration that he would be the most non-interventionist in a Presidential Cabinet in decades is incredibly short-sighted and imo hurts the cause of liberty. The guy opposed the 1st Iraq war for goodness sake (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/jim-webb-for-secretary-of-defense/). Name me one Cabinet hopeful in 25 years since that war that would have done the same!

Jim Webb for Secretary of Defense! Jim Webb for Secretary of State!

[paleocon1]

That's not even the point.

The election is over and now it's time to deal with actual TRUMP policies.

Trump isn't even President yet. BTW, don't get your panties in a twist. He won't draft you.

[Ender]

Trump isn't even President yet. BTW, don't get your panties in a twist. He won't draft you.

Uhh.... this thread is about Trump and his choices- get over yourself.

[UWDude]

That's not even the point.

The election is over and now it's time to deal with actual TRUMP policies.

Then why are you talking about non-policies? Trump isn't even president yet.