Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All too many here seem to be very excited over the prospect of going to war with N. Korea. This enthusiasm seems to be based on three fallacies:
1) A first strike on N. Korea would be instantly successful.
2) The fallout from nuclear weapons - never mind N. Korea's chemical and biological arsenal - would be of no consequence since it would mainly impact our allies in the region - Japan and S. Korea. Millions and millions of dead would be acceptable since they are not whites and they are so far away.
3) China would sit the entire thing out and ignore all the carnage in its own backyard.
Folks here seem to be completely indifferent to the fatalities and permanent, crippling injuries that would be sustained by the men and women currently serving in our military. The most recent Atlantic Monthly has an outstanding analysis of the situation with North Korea today. I highly recommend it to those who will not be put off by reading a rather long article.
An all-out attack on North Korea would succeed. The U.S. and South Korea are fully capable of defeating its military forces and toppling the Kim dynasty.
For sheer boldness and clarity, this is the option that would play best to President Trump’s base. (Some campaign posters for Trump boasted, finally someone with balls.) But to work, a preventive strike would require the most massive U.S. military attack since the first Korean War—a commitment of troops and resources far greater than any seen by most Americans and Koreans alive today.
Could our military sustain the commitment of such a massive troop build-up solely with an all volunteer military? I find that highly unlikely - especially in a nation which believes that it can "support our troops" with a few bumper stickers and mass indifference to the plight of all too many returning veterans who end up committing suicide or joining the growing ranks of the homeless who can be found on the streets of every American city.
I wonder how many here who are so eager to incite others to violence or complain that war is no longer "fun" because of technology are actually veterans or have close family members currently serving in the military? Are the rest of you willing to sign up and go fight for your country unlike the current president* who evaded the draft because of "bone spurs"?
Last edited by Colorado Rambler; 08-09-2017 at 02:41 PM..
Reason: language
I volunteered, but I saw firsthand that without the draft to keep Viet Nam going, that horrible waste of our youth, our treasure, and the massive damage that war did to this country would have never been allowed to continue for so long.
It was the worst war the United States ever engaged in in the 20th century. Nam chopped and diced us up into factions that began a social war with each other over a war on the other side of the world.
And we are still fighting each other to this day over it, while the Vietnamese have long reconciled and only have the ancient explosives to deal with.
If given that choice, I think most of the draftees would prefer to deal with the explosives.
I'm all for a 2-year draft, but not for military duty only. I think 2 years of mandatory service for the good of the nation would be a very good thing. Helping those who need it most, whatever and wherever that may be. Mandatory service that doesn't just involve teaching people how to kill other people.
For sure, the military will always be needed, but it is not the only way to build a patriot who wants life in a better nation. Patriots vote. Patriots participate in civic matters. Patriots engage.
That's what we need more of. Helping our own who need a hand for a bit. We all need a little help from time to time, and from time to time, we can always be able to help someone else. A draft could instill patriotism in a nation that really needs a dose of it once in a while.
If 2 years is too much time, then make it 18 months or one year. Other countries do it, and it's a real builder of a national spirit that is universal.
I volunteered, but I saw firsthand that without the draft to keep Viet Nam going, that horrible waste of our youth, our treasure, and the massive damage that war did to this country would have never been allowed to continue for so long.
It was the worst war the United States ever engaged in in the 20th century. Nam chopped and diced us up into factions that began a social war with each other over a war on the other side of the world.
And we are still fighting each other to this day over it, while the Vietnamese have long reconciled and only have the ancient explosives to deal with.
If given that choice, I think most of the draftees would prefer to deal with the explosives.
I'm all for a 2-year draft, but not for military duty only. I think 2 years of mandatory service for the good of the nation would be a very good thing. Helping those who need it most, whatever and wherever that may be. Mandatory service that doesn't just involve teaching people how to kill other people.
For sure, the military will always be needed, but it is not the only way to build a patriot who wants life in a better nation. Patriots vote. Patriots participate in civic matters. Patriots engage.
That's what we need more of. Helping our own who need a hand for a bit. We all need a little help from time to time, and from time to time, we can always be able to help someone else. A draft could instill patriotism in a nation that really needs a dose of it once in a while.
If 2 years is too much time, then make it 18 months or one year. Other countries do it, and it's a real builder of a national spirit that is universal.
I lost an uncle to war, and my father almost died as a Navy diver.
I lost a lot of friends in Viet Nam, and almost was drafted myself.
The draft only makes it easier for politicians to start wars that they NEVER have skin in the game. Men die for their folly.
FK THAT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I served during the draft.
I volunteered, but I saw firsthand that without the draft to keep Viet Nam going, that horrible waste of our youth, our treasure, and the massive damage that war did to this country would have never been allowed to continue for so long.
I volunteered, but I saw firsthand that without the draft to keep Viet Nam going, that horrible waste of our youth, our treasure, and the massive damage that war did to this country would have never been allowed to continue for so long.
It was the worst war the United States ever engaged in in the 20th century. Nam chopped and diced us up into factions that began a social war with each other over a war on the other side of the world.
And we are still fighting each other to this day over it, while the Vietnamese have long reconciled and only have the ancient explosives to deal with.
If given that choice, I think most of the draftees would prefer to deal with the explosives.
I'm all for a 2-year draft, but not for military duty only. I think 2 years of mandatory service for the good of the nation would be a very good thing. Helping those who need it most, whatever and wherever that may be. Mandatory service that doesn't just involve teaching people how to kill other people.
For sure, the military will always be needed, but it is not the only way to build a patriot who wants life in a better nation. Patriots vote. Patriots participate in civic matters. Patriots engage.
That's what we need more of. Helping our own who need a hand for a bit. We all need a little help from time to time, and from time to time, we can always be able to help someone else. A draft could instill patriotism in a nation that really needs a dose of it once in a while.
If 2 years is too much time, then make it 18 months or one year. Other countries do it, and it's a real builder of a national spirit that is universal.
First of all, thank you for your service to our country at a time when others were doing all they could to evade serving, including our so-called president. I salute you! My career Army Dad did two tours in Vietnam, one of which co-incided with the horrific Tet Offensive. We should never have become involved in that horrible and pointless war with its high numbers of casualties. My Dad and I had arguments over Vietnam, but we made our peace with one another without an undue amount of drama. My feeling is that were it not for the draft, many fewer Americans would have been directly impacted and an all career military would have been fighting there for many more years. The public outcry was the single most important factor in our getting out of that hellhole.
I am also in agreement that young people should be required to serve our country in some capacity - not necessarily in the military. They could be put to work repairing our nation's infrastructure, for example, and get paid a living wage to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
It would have been very easy to write that post without using such an offensive term, but I guess shock value is what you were going for?
Especially not the well fed broods of elitists, like politicians. Trump definitely wouldn't want little Baron to have to go.
They would all be on the line with their heads in their phone bones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
