Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Bring back the Draft

[Aurielius]

Congress would probably put some clause into it that would allow you to "buy out" of the obligation.... if you had enough money..... so the rich folks wouldn't be held to the same standards....

I am pleased to see that you have got over your pessimism streak. :whistling:

[Lisnpuppy]

Congress would probably put some clause into it that would allow you to "buy out" of the obligation.... if you had enough money..... so the rich folks wouldn't be held to the same standards....

 

And this would be different from how? lol

[HeyYou]

Congress would probably put some clause into it that would allow you to "buy out" of the obligation.... if you had enough money..... so the rich folks wouldn't be held to the same standards....

I am pleased to see that you have got over your pessimism streak. :whistling:

 

:laugh: Well, maybe to a certain extent. (*snort*, yeah, right......)

 

Congress would probably put some clause into it that would allow you to "buy out" of the obligation.... if you had enough money..... so the rich folks wouldn't be held to the same standards....

 

And this would be different from how? lol

 

Currently, there is no draft. Yeah, you have to register, but, not like anyone is going to be "called up"...... So, the rich folks would have to volunteer for service....... Not exactly a common occurrence.

[ginnyfizz]

It depends, and I find it a pretty insulting generalisation to suggest that the rich always buy themselves out of any service obligation. My maternal Grandpapa (the one from the poor background) would have disagreed most vehemently with this "the rich always get out of it somehow" argument as, in Flanders field where the poppies blew, the idealistic young volunteer officers from a gentlemanly background were slaughtered in their thousands, seeing that they were first "over the top". Indeed, despite being himself a brave soldier decorated to just one rung below a Victoria Cross, he declined the offer to be sent for officer training precisely for that reason. Forward to WW2 and I have already mentioned that my paternal uncle (from the officer and gentleman side of the family) left university to volunteer, despite the fact that my paternal Grandpapa was a Masonic Grand Master who "knew people" and had money. Oh and by the way, he also bought it a fortnight before my Uncle was shot down. Had Uncle revealed to the Wing Commander that Grandpapa had only just been killed he would have been stood down on compassionate grounds, but you see he had a stiff upper lip and did not want to let the chaps down.

 

Now how it would differ in this modern age you just do not know, so please stop making these sweeping generalisations. What I do know is not all of the gap year students from wealthy backgrounds that I know of spend their time stoned off their heads on the hippy trail. I know of far more who spend their time volunteering on projects in some of the poorest and most disease infested parts of the world, whether it be helping in HIV clinics or digging latrines.

 

Here's how a system of compulsory public service would play out where I come from. The politically correct powers that be would make an absolute point of making sure that all the middle and upper class youth, the types whose parents bother to fill in the register of electors, were dragged off to do their bit. After all, they'd be easier to trace. But the ne'er do wells who wagged school and never had any intention of going to work afterwards, all the better to take advantage of our generous benefit system, would get out of their compulsory public service in the same way. They simply would not turn up and would plead their deprived backgrounds, or the fact that they were unable to read their call up papers.

[tetradite]

It depends, and I find it a pretty insulting generalisation to suggest that the rich always buy themselves out of any service obligation. My maternal Grandpapa (the one from the poor background) would have disagreed most vehemently with this "the rich always get out of it somehow" argument as, in Flanders field where the poppies blew, the idealistic young volunteer officers from a gentlemanly background were slaughtered in their thousands, seeing that they were first "over the top". Indeed, despite being himself a brave soldier decorated to just one rung below a Victoria Cross, he declined the offer to be sent for officer training precisely for that reason. Forward to WW2 and I have already mentioned that my paternal uncle (from the officer and gentleman side of the family) left university to volunteer, despite the fact that my paternal Grandpapa was a Masonic Grand Master who "knew people" and had money. Oh and by the way, he also bought it a fortnight before my Uncle was shot down. Had Uncle revealed to the Wing Commander that Grandpapa had only just been killed he would have been stood down on compassionate grounds, but you see he had a stiff upper lip and did not want to let the chaps down.

 

Now how it would differ in this modern age you just do not know, so please stop making these sweeping generalisations. What I do know is not all of the gap year students from wealthy backgrounds that I know of spend their time stoned off their heads on the hippy trail. I know of far more who spend their time volunteering on projects in some of the poorest and most disease infested parts of the world, whether it be helping in HIV clinics or digging latrines.

 

Here's how a system of compulsory public service would play out where I come from. The politically correct powers that be would make an absolute point of making sure that all the middle and upper class youth, the types whose parents bother to fill in the register of electors, were dragged off to do their bit. After all, they'd be easier to trace. But the ne'er do wells who wagged school and never had any intention of going to work afterwards, all the better to take advantage of our generous benefit system, would get out of their compulsory public service in the same way. They simply would not turn up and would plead their deprived backgrounds, or the fact that they were unable to read their call up papers.

 

Ummm, you just ended your plea for no sweeping generalisations, with a sweeping generalisation.

[HeyYou]

There are exceptions to every rule, including generalizations. I live here in the states, and, by and large, the rich do NOT do military service. With a few notable exceptions...... :D

 

Some of the rich went so far as to go to school in another country, (in reality, they lived there, not all were actually going to school) to dodge military service...... This was especially prevalent during the Viet Nam era.

[Vagrant0]

Rich people don't usually enlist as a regular, they go to military school and enlist as officers because they have the financial and educational backing to do so. Also, statistically, there are more of the poor getting involved with the armed forces because there are more poor, so naturally there would be the impression that most of those who are sent to war come from a more common background. Comparing the US to the UK also doesn't really work since both have totally different mindsets about "duty to country", and both had dramatically different personal stakes in both WWII and Vietnam. So that argument really doesn't go anywhere.

[Aurielius]

Rich people don't usually enlist as a regular, they go to military school and enlist as officers because they have the financial and educational backing to do so.

I hope that you are not making a qualitative judgment on the commitment of enlisted versus officers in serving their country. Both bring something to the table irrespective of point of origin, the military benefits from the addition of brains to the mix as much as it does having brawn. Academy grads invest four year of their time before they serve a day and generally serve longer than most of their enlisted brethren. It is a carefully premeditated career choice.

[Vagrant0]

Rich people don't usually enlist as a regular, they go to military school and enlist as officers because they have the financial and educational backing to do so.

I hope that you are not making a qualitative judgment on the commitment of enlisted versus officers in serving their country. Both bring something to the table irrespective of point of origin, the military benefits from the addition of brains to the mix as much as it does having brawn. Academy grads invest four year of their time before they serve a day and generally serve longer than most of their enlisted brethren. It is a carefully premeditated career choice.

*facepalms*

 

Making no judgements. Simply saying that currently, as the majority of those serving in the military at this moment are likely doing so willingly, and not under court or federal order; combined with the numerical inequality of rich to poor, that naturally there would not be as many children of the higher class serving on the front lines compared to the number of those who would come from poorer ones. There are always exceptions, but those exceptions would be rare as a matter of statistics or financial need for grants after service.

[dazzerfong]

While we're on this topic, how about compulsory basic training? We're not exactly drafting them into the army, but just basic training (ie. leadership skills, firearms handling, map-reading, etc). Would that be an equally bad alternative?