PDA

View Full Version : DRAFT??



Taylor
07-01-2008, 10:14 PM
:huh:Hey just wanna ask a quick Q, alot of people have been talking about another draft, I don't really know if the goverment/whoever does this, (im only 14 FOR GODS SAKE!:001_tongue:) or just people who want to say that kind of stuff? opion anyone?:ohmy: :huh:

Italian Jew
07-01-2008, 10:42 PM
What?

LegalSmash
07-01-2008, 11:40 PM
LOL

No. Drafts are seriously last resort measures when we need a shitload of poorly trained conscripts to zerg rush.

We as a country have not had a "draft" per se, since Vietnam, and did so at the time on the basis of a US defense strategy that had existed since WW2, the "Two years in green" civil or military service obligation that many people that were of majority age from 1914-1918, and 1939-1953 were pretty much all required to do. We actually called a draft for the Vietnam war however, and it was within this war that we saw the inherent difficulties with the system as applied to a non-congressionally declared war, namely people being able to get out of it without actual cause of consciencious objection, and the age limit was fixed at a lower number.

In wwii, 18-45 were eligible for conscription, however, that did not mean that the ENTIRE cohort covered would be combat troop... there were not ongoing college deferments, and given the nature of WWII there was also a great amount of volunteering.

Vietnam was the opposite, most conscripted troops were conscripted for the purposes of in country combat duties, and the methods trained in the camps were nothing compared to the actual jungle warfare that the soldiers would face... we were still teaching WWII/Korea era tactics.

The likelihood of a draft here is very low, we have sufficient active, reserve, and ready reserve to deal with the current situation.

What you do have an obligation to do however, is register for the selective service system if you are a male, and of age 18 in the US. This is required for any and all people under that spec, except consciencious objectors. Its required to register, and not doing so prevents you from receiving federal financial aid and other financial assistance from the government that would otherwise be available to the average citizen.

Now, with SS, what happens is that is congress activates the program, either for a conflict or a war, everyone's number, based on priority of age is called:

20 year olds on that year first, then 21, 19, 22, 23,24,25,18

The general idea is to avoid taking the 18 year olds if at all possible, the SS doesnt have a contingency plan past 25, from what I understand. Changes also include only allowing student deferments till the end of the current term, or if graduating that year, till the end of that academic year and degree confirmation, and religious based objection will still require joining a civil service obligation, rather than not serving at all.

The only way to get out of the SS scheme is to basically have a vagina... although I think that is tremendously unfair and with all their talk of wanting equality, women should be required to serve in some capacity compulsorily as well.

If we went to war with china, we'd have SS. As stands though, its an immensely unpopular move and literally in these days, political suicide.

Italian Jew
07-01-2008, 11:50 PM
Nah, I think he means the NFL draft or the NBA draft. :rlol:

:001_tt2:

Repeat
07-02-2008, 05:39 AM
LOL

No. Drafts are seriously last resort measures when we need a shitload of poorly trained conscripts to zerg rush.

We as a country have not had a "draft" per se, since Vietnam, and did so at the time on the basis of a US defense strategy that had existed since WW2, the "Two years in green" civil or military service obligation that many people that were of majority age from 1914-1918, and 1939-1953 were pretty much all required to do. We actually called a draft for the Vietnam war however, and it was within this war that we saw the inherent difficulties with the system as applied to a non-congressionally declared war, namely people being able to get out of it without actual cause of consciencious objection, and the age limit was fixed at a lower number.

In wwii, 18-45 were eligible for conscription, however, that did not mean that the ENTIRE cohort covered would be combat troop... there were not ongoing college deferments, and given the nature of WWII there was also a great amount of volunteering.

Vietnam was the opposite, most conscripted troops were conscripted for the purposes of in country combat duties, and the methods trained in the camps were nothing compared to the actual jungle warfare that the soldiers would face... we were still teaching WWII/Korea era tactics.

The likelihood of a draft here is very low, we have sufficient active, reserve, and ready reserve to deal with the current situation.

What you do have an obligation to do however, is register for the selective service system if you are a male, and of age 18 in the US. This is required for any and all people under that spec, except consciencious objectors. Its required to register, and not doing so prevents you from receiving federal financial aid and other financial assistance from the government that would otherwise be available to the average citizen.

Now, with SS, what happens is that is congress activates the program, either for a conflict or a war, everyone's number, based on priority of age is called:

20 year olds on that year first, then 21, 19, 22, 23,24,25,18

The general idea is to avoid taking the 18 year olds if at all possible, the SS doesnt have a contingency plan past 25, from what I understand. Changes also include only allowing student deferments till the end of the current term, or if graduating that year, till the end of that academic year and degree confirmation, and religious based objection will still require joining a civil service obligation, rather than not serving at all.

The only way to get out of the SS scheme is to basically have a vagina... although I think that is tremendously unfair and with all their talk of wanting equality, women should be required to serve in some capacity compulsorily as well.

If we went to war with china, we'd have SS. As stands though, its an immensely unpopular move and literally in these days, political suicide.

Bingo! Tell him what he has won, Johnny! I wuv me sum LegalSmash.

Anyway, you watch too much television Taylor. The only way we'd have a draft is if we got into World War III (some might argue that we're in the beginning of it now), but it would have to be a HUGE war. Nothing like what's going on now.

I might not be opposed to the required two year military service. I think it would help this country out a lot by building the physical and moral characters of its younger residents. I'm thinking about doing some time at least in the Air Force Reserves when I graduate from college in a year or two. We'll see. Israel currently requires all young people, vagina or not, to serve. And they're all badasses. I don't think many people share my sentiment though.

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 06:49 AM
I would be inclined to agree here, service of public nature to one's country can be very significant in molding the person into a productive member of society. 2 years served immediately after high school and before college can make a vast difference in the person's maturity and usefulness to society if properly implemented.

By doing this however, I feel some aspects of the current military induction, training, and socialization system need to change, new soldiers, as well as old ones need better financial planning instruction (I'm talking about check book management here, folks, not portfolio diversification, although it would not hurt) and perhaps some sort of system to allow them to ease back into nonmilitary life, as unfortunately, many younger guys tend to have some trouble with that.

I think that while this should be compulsory, that college tuition assistance should be provided to attend reasonable universities and subsidize the entry into certain majors (mathematics, science, engineering, biology, chemistry, and medicine) (I'm thinking any place within reason and the person's ability to enter via the school's criteria for admission)

By doing this, I think we can raise the quality of citizen in this country, and prevent what I refer to as two phenomena: "Rampant idiot, useless, angsty suburban youth" and "rampant idiot, shiftless, violent urban youth"

There is a cancer currently killing our nation, and it has been since the 1950s, crappy cohorts of kids raised by pussified parents.

This may be the cure.

Lux
07-02-2008, 07:10 AM
Yes except there are downsides to compulsary military service.

Many jobs are almost completely occupied by young people who have just left school. There is also certain professions such as sport where people are starting professionally at around 16. Also when you look at some of the worlds most successful people, they never completed their education, if military service was compulsary some people might not even be able to finish their education.

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 08:38 AM
Yes except there are downsides to compulsary military service.

Many jobs are almost completely occupied by young people who have just left school. There is also certain professions such as sport where people are starting professionally at around 16. Also when you look at some of the worlds most successful people, they never completed their education, if military service was compulsary some people might not even be able to finish their education.


Please see comment above about finishing high school, "after high school" implies the completion, successfully of high school.

Also, subsidizing collegiate education for service members would permit them the opportunity to go to school (college, trade school, etc)
on a less costly plan, allowing them more financial freedom upon completion of their education post high school and service, should they choose to accept it.

As for professional sports, I dont consider that to be gainful employment, its a spectacle, you play a game, and contribute about DICK to society. Pro sport teams that pluck kids out of high school are hurting the kid more than helping him, because the kid is financially retarded, the same concept applies to acting. It is NOT a real profession that benefits the public as a whole. We have sufficient imbeciles that run fast, they are called purse snatchers.

What other jobs are as you put it "completely occupied by young people"?

Lux
07-02-2008, 08:57 AM
Please see comment above about finishing high school, "after high school" implies the completion, successfully of high school.

Also, subsidizing collegiate education for service members would permit them the opportunity to go to school (college, trade school, etc)
on a less costly plan, allowing them more financial freedom upon completion of their education post high school and service, should they choose to accept it.

As for professional sports, I dont consider that to be gainful employment, its a spectacle, you play a game, and contribute about DICK to society. Pro sport teams that pluck kids out of high school are hurting the kid more than helping him, because the kid is financially retarded, the same concept applies to acting. It is NOT a real profession that benefits the public as a whole. We have sufficient imbeciles that run fast, they are called purse snatchers.

What other jobs are as you put it "completely occupied by young people"?

Er from what I see you would say that after highschool the SS comes in, which in the UK is 16, dunno about US though :blink:. This seems a bit young for the army no?? Many people at this age just aren't ready.

Also..

"Also, subsidizing collegiate education for service members would permit them the opportunity to go to school (college, trade school, etc)
on a less costly plan, allowing them more financial freedom upon completion of their education post high school and service, should they choose to accept it."

I don't get this entirely, do you suggest that people give up college, go to college whilst in the service ??????? (huh) or do the service after college. I acknowledged that they wouldn't be taken out of high school, but education beyond that is valuable too.

Sport and acting DO contribute to society. Think about this, if 100m sprinters weren't sprinting for gold medals, they could be sprinting for gold watches?

Sport gives people the opportunity to make something out of their life. How many sports men/women are very poor, it isn't just major sports like football (us and world football) but all kinds of sport give them something to do rather than be anti-social.

ONTOP of that, entertainment is a major part of society. Saying people watching sport is stupid is like saying people playing games is stupid, eventually everything will be "stupid" until all we do is eat,drink,have sex,sleep,look after children,die.

Entertainment is a big part of why we are so advanced, I would think you'd see that.

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 09:22 AM
Er from what I see you would say that after highschool the SS comes in, which in the UK is 16, dunno about US though :blink:. This seems a bit young for the army no?? Many people at this age just aren't ready.

Also..

"Also, subsidizing collegiate education for service members would permit them the opportunity to go to school (college, trade school, etc)
on a less costly plan, allowing them more financial freedom upon completion of their education post high school and service, should they choose to accept it."

I don't get this entirely, do you suggest that people give up college, go to college whilst in the service ??????? (huh) or do the service after college. I acknowledged that they wouldn't be taken out of high school, but education beyond that is valuable too.

Sport and acting DO contribute to society. Think about this, if 100m sprinters weren't sprinting for gold medals, they could be sprinting for gold watches?

Sport gives people the opportunity to make something out of their life. How many sports men/women are very poor, it isn't just major sports like football (us and world football) but all kinds of sport give them something to do rather than be anti-social.

ONTOP of that, entertainment is a major part of society. Saying people watching sport is stupid is like saying people playing games is stupid, eventually everything will be "stupid" until all we do is eat,drink,have sex,sleep,look after children,die.

Entertainment is a big part of why we are so advanced, I would think you'd see that.

By all means, let me clarify:

My comments are limited exclusively to United States Selective Service. I am wholly unfamiliar with the British method of military preparedness in event of major action.

Here in the US the age of majority is 18 federally, and many kids stay in high school up to 19.

Im not saying people give up college, but rather, that fresh from high school kids in the US would benefit from 2 years of directed federal service rather than immediate entrance into a university, as it continues the suspension of reality that occurs while in College in the US, which falls flat on your head upon exiting. Service would occur between 18-20, and then college, allowing for the young person to have a more thorough understanding of what they wish to do.

As for sports, I stand by my comments, here in the US athletes are grossly overpaid, they do not run for medals, they are buffoons for the most part, loud, ignorant steroid monkeys that embarrass themselves on grand scale quite frequently. I do not know how athletes are in GB, but I can say that here, the professional sports leagues only serve to take the minds of the people off their otherwise shitty lives, and I believe that we would be better off if we actually bothered to see WHY said lives are so shitty rather than watching Dae'Ta'Quondoe Johnson run 120 yards in 3 seconds. I'm just not impressed.

Kids know more about an athlete's statistics than they know about their own grammar and math books in many cases, and that my friend, is thoroughly appalling. I do not consider playing a game to be a job... I just don't, to me its the equivalent of acting in porno... eventually you are going to lose your looks, running ability, strength, etc, and because you've been strung along like cattle the whole way, and know nothing about managing yourself, your millions end up in the crapper.

Additionally, many times here in the US athletes do not behave as they should considering the pedestal they are placed upon. I find it disheartening that kids look up to barely literate, fast running bastard children rather than a doctor, a prime minister, a lawyer, a teacher, you know, the real heroes who make the world work.

100 years from now, no one will give a rats ass about Boqueem Jackson or how fast he ran, but everyone will remember Churchhill, Jefferson, and shit, even Johnny Cochrane, God bless his litigating bones.

We need to get our priorities straight as a people in the US, rather than staring at "ooh pretty" or "ooh fast runner".

As for antisocialism, that is cured through social ridicule, or better yet, imposition of self worth through training, education, and proper socialization.

Again, IMHO, and my comments, unless otherwise noted are strictly referring to the USA and its system of SS,

How does Britain do it Luxorz? The military readiness, I mean.

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 09:52 AM
First of all I'd like to address the guy who actually screamed draft. Roughly 1/10 of all American Armed Forces are stationed in the Middle East, nearly double that number are hired contractors/mercs for a variety of jobs, most civilian.

And Legal, I know you hinted at it but why didn't you just explain the GI Bill, and the mutual college fund system the with military for four years of service?(They match whatever you put towards college)

Taylor
07-02-2008, 09:52 AM
Bingo! Tell him what he has won, Johnny! I wuv me sum LegalSmash.

Anyway, you watch too much television Taylor. The only way we'd have a draft is if we got into World War III (some might argue that we're in the beginning of it now), but it would have to be a HUGE war. Nothing like what's going on now.

I might not be opposed to the required two year military service. I think it would help this country out a lot by building the physical and moral characters of its younger residents. I'm thinking about doing some time at least in the Air Force Reserves when I graduate from college in a year or two. We'll see. Israel currently requires all young people, vagina or not, to serve. And they're all badasses. I don't think many people share my sentiment though.


Thanks Legal,:001_smile:

and like i said TEACHERS and OTHER PEOPLE have been talking about it, i DID NOT get this from a movie:001_rolleyes:

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 10:21 AM
Polka

I did not address the GI bill because it is currently held legislation that has existed for some time, where I wanted to propose a different system. On another note re GI bill however, I feel it is in disrepair and in drastic need of refunding and upgrade. :partydance:

Lux
07-02-2008, 03:59 PM
Er LegalSmash by military readyness I assume you mean readying a person for the army, or do you mean readying them for life through the army...I dunno.

If it is the first then there are many things you could do.

On a smaller scale you could go to scouts, but there is also things like Army Cadets and Sea Cadets which are for younger people, you do some army related things. Then if you want to be in the army part time there is the Territorial army, where you can actually be called up I think, but generally you just go to your local Territorial army base weekly or something like that and do activities to train you, you might do other stuff too I dunno.

The actual military wise I don't really know, I have never had anything to do with it but you have to be 18 to join, that is the "aging to a man" point, but you can leave school at 16, college is then 17 and 18, for uni you could take a gap year or go straight into uni.

People who leave at 16 generally join a local job, such as a mechanics, a supermarket I dunno...or anything where no qualifications are required.

Finally on the sports case, our Sports Boards are some of the strictest in the world. A regular England first team football player got a 8 month ban for missing a drugs test, despite being clean when discovered afterwards. Athletes are banned for atleast 2 years for any drug offences, and tests are done atleast 3 or 4 times a year from my understanding. You are also banned for life from the Olympics.

In other sports there isn't much difference, in football players in many cases have been bad role models, by feigning fouls, spitting all the time, arguing with refs, bad sportsmanship etc. These days they are being clamped down upon, and I really do think that whilst they are overpaid, they have a massive task to do, playing world class football week in week out training most days of the week for long hours, and playing infront of thousands.

I genuinely think that sport is a positive thing for many people, in my team, Watford, a player from Sierra Leone was as poor as could be, and going back to Sierra Leone would be certain death. His application at first was denied to stay but the media really helped him out, maybe special treatment but he has made something out of his life, he could of become a criminal but he got a break through and without opportunities like this they would suffer, and the public would too, a world without proffessional sport would be BORING.

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 04:39 PM
Er LegalSmash by military readyness I assume you mean readying a person for the army, or do you mean readying them for life through the army...I dunno.

If it is the first then there are many things you could do.

On a smaller scale you could go to scouts, but there is also things like Army Cadets and Sea Cadets which are for younger people, you do some army related things. Then if you want to be in the army part time there is the Territorial army, where you can actually be called up I think, but generally you just go to your local Territorial army base weekly or something like that and do activities to train you, you might do other stuff too I dunno.

The actual military wise I don't really know, I have never had anything to do with it but you have to be 18 to join, that is the "aging to a man" point, but you can leave school at 16, college is then 17 and 18, for uni you could take a gap year or go straight into uni.

People who leave at 16 generally join a local job, such as a mechanics, a supermarket I dunno...or anything where no qualifications are required.

Finally on the sports case, our Sports Boards are some of the strictest in the world. A regular England first team football player got a 8 month ban for missing a drugs test, despite being clean when discovered afterwards. Athletes are banned for atleast 2 years for any drug offences, and tests are done atleast 3 or 4 times a year from my understanding. You are also banned for life from the Olympics.

In other sports there isn't much difference, in football players in many cases have been bad role models, by feigning fouls, spitting all the time, arguing with refs, bad sportsmanship etc. These days they are being clamped down upon, and I really do think that whilst they are overpaid, they have a massive task to do, playing world class football week in week out training most days of the week for long hours, and playing infront of thousands.

I genuinely think that sport is a positive thing for many people, in my team, Watford, a player from Sierra Leone was as poor as could be, and going back to Sierra Leone would be certain death. His application at first was denied to stay but the media really helped him out, maybe special treatment but he has made something out of his life, he could of become a criminal but he got a break through and without opportunities like this they would suffer, and the public would too, a world without proffessional sport would be BORING.

Teens at the age of 16 play videogames, violently harrass bums and masterbate while their parents are out on errands, they are a plague upon society and thinning their numbers would be a godsend.

Italian Jew
07-02-2008, 04:47 PM
So your plan is to lose a generation like in WWI?

I blame the parents and society itself...hell, and why not the teens as well.

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 04:55 PM
So your plan is to lose a generation like in WWI?

I blame the parents and society itself...hell, and why not the teens as well.

Agreed. Okay Italian I'll get the nuke and you get the passports, we're going to Moscow.

Italian Jew
07-02-2008, 05:01 PM
Agreed. Okay Italian I'll get the nuke and you get the passports, we're going to Moscow.

You're only getting one?

yojimbo
07-02-2008, 05:10 PM
so when do i get my draft card :rlol:

Lux
07-02-2008, 05:21 PM
Teens at the age of 16 play videogames, violently harrass bums and masterbate while their parents are out on errands, they are a plague upon society and thinning their numbers would be a godsend.

Harsh........You play video games, bums are bums, they are a waste of life, wanking is human nature I think, unless they want to go fuck every girl they meet?

I wasn't 16 long ago and I think many are a plague but these "dam youngsters get off my lawn you dam hooligans" look is really stupid its not like 18 year olds such as you and me are any better, most likely worse.

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 05:30 PM
Harsh........You play video games, bums are bums, they are a waste of life, wanking is human nature I think, unless they want to go fuck every girl they meet?

I wasn't 16 long ago and I think many are a plague but these "dam youngsters get off my lawn you dam hooligans" look is really stupid its not like 18 year olds such as you and me are any better, most likely worse.

For christs sake man its called sarcasm. Get off the damn pulput.

Italian Jew
07-02-2008, 05:32 PM
What we need is a sarcasm smiley :rlol:

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 05:36 PM
What we need is a sarcasm smiley :rlol:

That one will do just fine, just add a sign saying "4 Teh Lulz"

Lux
07-02-2008, 05:47 PM
Sorry I never got internet sarcasm, especially as there was no emotions to hint it :sneaky2:

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 05:58 PM
Sorry I never got internet sarcasm, especially as there was no emotions to hint it :sneaky2:

That's why its called sarcasm!
Seriously though,
No, there won't be a Draft, even if Americans have to sign up for Selective Service at 18.

Why? Because the current U.S. Soldier costs alot of money, and in this day of entire fields being leveled by one daisy-cutter bomb, Quality > Quantity.

Lux
07-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Yeah I agree.

In any war where that many people would be needed in the olden days of WW2, a mere few would be needed now, those to hit the launch key on the nuke.

So many are only needed in Iraq because you are only allowed to attack certain targets, where as in the fully fledged war I would think that would go completely out the window, live or die.

Repeat
07-02-2008, 06:14 PM
Draft as in national conscription?

Was discontinued in the U.S. in 1973 I think, so it just simply wouldn't happen.

We 'legally' don't have the draft anymore, and you are correct on the date, but we do have the Selective Service deal, which in my opinion is the same. They can just bust that move out and start the draft back up.

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 06:20 PM
Luxorz, the best equivalent britain had is something called "national service" which was discontinued in 1963, the difference with this former british statute and our current SS statute, is that SS is inactive. It is only triggered upon congressional mandate due to either a congressional declaration of war (WWI, WW2), or a congressionally declared mobilization in order to assist in an ongoing conflict (Vietnam, Korea).

brb

PotshotPolka
07-02-2008, 06:41 PM
Luxorz, the best equivalent britain had is something called "national service" which was discontinued in 1963, the difference with this former british statute and our current SS statute, is that SS is inactive. It is only triggered upon congressional mandate due to either a congressional declaration of war (WWI, WW2), or a congressionally declared mobilization in order to assist in an ongoing conflict (Vietnam, Korea).

brb

There was drafting on both sides during the Civil War as well.

Italian Jew
07-02-2008, 07:30 PM
Holy shit, I must have missed the Fantasy Civil War Draft!!!!

Man, I think I would take Robert E. Lee in the 1st round....if I had the first pick of course. He goes by quickly. Might get Sherman later, or maybe McClellan. He was a bit lame, but everyone needs a backup.

LegalSmash
07-02-2008, 10:50 PM
Fine Jew, if you get Lee, I get nathaniel bedford forrest, CAVALRY!! Also, I get Stonewall Jackson.

Italian Jew
07-02-2008, 11:26 PM
Fine...

Jackson will just suffer an arm injury during year 3 and be put on the IR/Dead list for the rest of the war.

I get my info from ESPN! WU TANG!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rlol:

Forrest is going to be a sleeper though. He isn't really much now, but he will develop over a few years and become a star player.