No plans for conscription in the US, huh?

[Daeval]

what about California? kinda doubting us out here myself cause...welll...if you were a morally committed conservative politician, would you send someone to war that comes from a state with a shiitload of gays, atheism, and all other types of liberalism?

 

buuut...idk, we have that austrian governer who's a conservative

 

 

that should just say "Unser Führer"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It already IS that way in California. At least, I know I had to submit my info to selective service when I was 18. That was about 5 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no dude, you don't get it see, cause the state govs. in those states in those news pages had ppl giving their selective service info earlier than 18 see. Cause it's required by law to apply for selective service once you turn 18

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, I see. My bad.

 

However, it's still not a really good reason to skip to the most extreme conclusion. The armed forces are in bad shape in terms of recruitment right now, and there are steps they can take to resolve that that won't completely destroy the reputation of themselves and anyone in charge. This in itself is not directly harmful, and could be a part of a recruitment scheme that is not as ridiculous as a draft.

 

I'm not any happier with the situation than anyone else in this country, but I'm not going to scream doomsday over something like this.

[random guy]

what about California? kinda doubting us out here myself cause...welll...if you were a morally committed conservative politician, would you send someone to war that comes from a state with a shiitload of gays, atheism, and all other types of liberalism?

 

buuut...idk, we have that austrian governer who's a conservative

 

 

that should just say "Unser Führer"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It already IS that way in California. At least, I know I had to submit my info to selective service when I was 18. That was about 5 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no dude, you don't get it see, cause the state govs. in those states in those news pages had ppl giving their selective service info earlier than 18 see. Cause it's required by law to apply for selective service once you turn 18

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, I see. My bad.

 

However, it's still not a really good reason to skip to the most extreme conclusion. The armed forces are in bad shape in terms of recruitment right now, and there are steps they can take to resolve that that won't completely destroy the reputation of themselves and anyone in charge. This in itself is not directly harmful, and could be a part of a recruitment scheme that is not as ridiculous as a draft.

 

I'm not any happier with the situation than anyone else in this country, but I'm not going to scream doomsday over something like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if you're right, targeting 15- and 16- year olds with military advertisements and recruitment drives is morally reprehensible enough in my opinion. It also shows that the military are desperate - meaning even if you're right, they'll be forced to resort to the draft eventually.

[iq_132]

I'm 20 (almost 21), and I had to fill out my information for the draft when I turned 18.

It's been that way for YEARS. I don't really see a problem with the government trying to get young people to serve their country. I mean.. some countries it is absolutely required that you do military service (Isreal) for a few years.

 

btw, people under the age of 18 will never get drafted and the draft will most likely never be re-instated.

[Weirdy]

I'm gonna put air force when the TYME comes

[Daeval]

what about California? kinda doubting us out here myself cause...welll...if you were a morally committed conservative politician, would you send someone to war that comes from a state with a shiitload of gays, atheism, and all other types of liberalism?

 

buuut...idk, we have that austrian governer who's a conservative

 

 

that should just say "Unser Führer"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It already IS that way in California. At least, I know I had to submit my info to selective service when I was 18. That was about 5 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no dude, you don't get it see, cause the state govs. in those states in those news pages had ppl giving their selective service info earlier than 18 see. Cause it's required by law to apply for selective service once you turn 18

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, I see. My bad.

 

However, it's still not a really good reason to skip to the most extreme conclusion. The armed forces are in bad shape in terms of recruitment right now, and there are steps they can take to resolve that that won't completely destroy the reputation of themselves and anyone in charge. This in itself is not directly harmful, and could be a part of a recruitment scheme that is not as ridiculous as a draft.

 

I'm not any happier with the situation than anyone else in this country, but I'm not going to scream doomsday over something like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if you're right, targeting 15- and 16- year olds with military advertisements and recruitment drives is morally reprehensible enough in my opinion. It also shows that the military are desperate - meaning even if you're right, they'll be forced to resort to the draft eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Morally reprehensible, yes, but ANY advertising scheme for volunteer service is a hundred times better, at least, than forced enlistment. Also, good luck passing the law that would let kids that age actually serve.

 

Such a campaign would most likely be aimed at improving the image of the military with young people to increase voluntary recruitment as they get older. The military has a crap image now thanks to the actions of Mr. Bush, and a large portion of the personell are low income folks for whom it is one of relatively few options. It's well known that motivated voluntary recruits are considerably more effective than conscripts, and mean less overall recruitment is necessary.

 

Furthermore, even if they are "desperate," there's only so much evidence that the "desparation" will lead to a draft. The pentagon itself has remarked on the ineffectiveness of the draft system with modern military tactics. And that's not to mention the social and political backlash that would obviously arise. There are probably few who would trade political suicide and mass social upheaval for a largely ineffective draft measure. That's probably why they've been shot down every time they've come up.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's definately not going to happen. There is a chance that there will be a draft and in that case I'll see you all in the border waits. However, there is an attitude of paranoid reasoning about everything in the media right now and it's retarted. Let's try to think critically instead of jumping on the sensational media bandwagon.

[Weirdy]

well...if ppl protested so much during the vietnam war in the 60's, imagine how many ppl would be protesting if the draft were to be reinstated today!

 

IMO, it's as if the gov. doesn't have a chance

[random guy]

what about California? kinda doubting us out here myself cause...welll...if you were a morally committed conservative politician, would you send someone to war that comes from a state with a shiitload of gays, atheism, and all other types of liberalism?

 

buuut...idk, we have that austrian governer who's a conservative

 

 

that should just say "Unser Führer"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It already IS that way in California. At least, I know I had to submit my info to selective service when I was 18. That was about 5 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no dude, you don't get it see, cause the state govs. in those states in those news pages had ppl giving their selective service info earlier than 18 see. Cause it's required by law to apply for selective service once you turn 18

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, I see. My bad.

 

However, it's still not a really good reason to skip to the most extreme conclusion. The armed forces are in bad shape in terms of recruitment right now, and there are steps they can take to resolve that that won't completely destroy the reputation of themselves and anyone in charge. This in itself is not directly harmful, and could be a part of a recruitment scheme that is not as ridiculous as a draft.

 

I'm not any happier with the situation than anyone else in this country, but I'm not going to scream doomsday over something like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if you're right, targeting 15- and 16- year olds with military advertisements and recruitment drives is morally reprehensible enough in my opinion. It also shows that the military are desperate - meaning even if you're right, they'll be forced to resort to the draft eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Morally reprehensible, yes, but ANY advertising scheme for volunteer service is a hundred times better, at least, than forced enlistment. Also, good luck passing the law that would let kids that age actually serve.

 

Such a campaign would most likely be aimed at improving the image of the military with young people to increase voluntary recruitment as they get older. The military has a crap image now thanks to the actions of Mr. Bush, and a large portion of the personell are low income folks for whom it is one of relatively few options. It's well known that motivated voluntary recruits are considerably more effective than conscripts, and mean less overall recruitment is necessary.

 

Furthermore, even if they are "desperate," there's only so much evidence that the "desparation" will lead to a draft. The pentagon itself has remarked on the ineffectiveness of the draft system with modern military tactics. And that's not to mention the social and political backlash that would obviously arise. There are probably few who would trade political suicide and mass social upheaval for a largely ineffective draft measure. That's probably why they've been shot down every time they've come up.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's definately not going to happen. There is a chance that there will be a draft and in that case I'll see you all in the border waits. However, there is an attitude of paranoid reasoning about everything in the media right now and it's retarted. Let's try to think critically instead of jumping on the sensational media bandwagon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not claiming that if conscription gets reintroduced, they'll be conscripting under 18-year olds, but its disturbing that they're getting to them that early.

[KyokugenKiss]

in the US its mandatory to sign it once your 18, well unless your a dual citizen like me but its not a big deal because there are enough people in our military voluntary just wanting to shoot "sand n*gg*rs" in the head

[Agozer]

Military service is still a must over here. Unless you have health issues.

[alexis]

here in Argentina conscription was removed after an 18 years guys was bullied and eventually killed by his superiors, nice huh? after that incident obligatory conscription was removed forever

[Ryuken]

now that i'm thinking about it, i'm not a US citizen yet, so the draft won't aply to me even when i turn 18