In honor of Muhammad Ali, Sen. Rand Paul will introduce bill to end Selective Service
86 replies, posted
Sorry, but I'm against being drafted to go fight a war for the interest of the political and wealthy elite of this country. If we were ever actually attacked on our soil by another nation, with the scale of that attack being the same as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 we'd see numerous people storming the recruitment offices to go fight.
And then, if the opposing country actually set foot on our soil means our own military got fucking bodied and no amount of drafted civilians will change that. You can't replace quality with quantity(citation; U.S invading Iraq). The civilians who are armed will sure as shit dig themselves in and band together for a futile resistance that will amount to nothing.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471934] A civilian resistance would be larger than any fighting force a draft could muster. [/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50472025] The civilians who are armed will sure as shit dig themselves in and band together for a futile resistance that will amount to nothing.[/QUOTE]
The US military forced out every insurgency in every town in Iraq. The problem was they kept popping back up, but in the end they would eventually be overwhelmed again by modern military forces.
Again, look at the death toll of American soldiers compared to Iraqi insurgents. While the soldier's deaths were large, the insurgents deaths were far greater - and they still lost every battle.
We withdrew from Iraq, much like Vietnam, because of people back home wanting our troops to come back. An american insurgency would be dependent on the attacking nation heeding their populous to come back home, which is a lot to depend on as a winning strategy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50472046][citation needed][/QUOTE]
[still arguing for the sake of it and without any real purpose]
The current population of our armed forces is just over 2.1 million, counting reservists. A draft would not, could not exceed our current military population if it's being invoked during an emergency. If only 1/100 civilians dug in to defend their residence then that would constitute a larger force than the draft could muster. 1% is a low estimate and you know it. Whether they'd see any success or not is as much a guess as anything else and we'll never know because it'll never happen so it doesn't matter.
How can I provide citations for something that hasn't happened and never will? You are speculating just as much as I am. I could easily take your posts apart with [citation needed] and you'd have nothing to come back with. A fight on US soil is not comparable to Vietnam or Iraq. We are in agreement about the subject - which is that the draft needs to go - so I don't understand why you're so fixated on arguing about it.
My citation is the FSA losing in Syria. The death toll of Iraqi insurgents compared to US soldiers in the 2000s. The fact that the Taliban has not seized control of the country after the US withdrew.
I'm just going to ignore the whole homeland invasion argument, as it has very, very little to do with the SS's actual reason for existing.
The draft in it's current form exists due to the downright [I][U][B]massive[/B][/U][/I] issues it takes if you do need to instate one, and you don't have it.
At one point the US decided it needed one, it wasn't because the homeland was in danger of invasion, it was because we were at war. It's a case of better having it and not needing it, and not having it, and needing it.
Lets say we remove the selective service, which isn't the draft in the first place. It's a list of able-bodied men of fighting age. Okay, it's removed.
Now as per a hypothetical, say we need soldiers. Able bodied soldiers of fighting age. At this point, it wouldn't be a question of volunteers, because all the volunteers would've already been sent to fight. It would be a question of taking people out of the working economy to continue a war that's so severe that our primary military requires extra bodies just to fill shoes.
If the US reaches that point during a war and it [I]lacks[/I] the selective service, every minute, every hour, is another life lost spent trying to find people.
Suddenly you're tasking massive amounts of manpower into simply tracking people down, compiling lists, etc.
There will be no point at which the US doesn't require such a thing, because no-one here can safely say that war will stop. I'm not talking about an invasion of the homeland, but a real war. We can hope and pray all we like that another one wont come along, but it's a question of lives. How many lives would you sacrifice, how many objectives, how much time and priority would you spend re-instituting such a measure, compared to already having it?
In the end, I'd say it's just a cost of living in the US as a Citizen. We are a nation that is never not at war, simply due to our global presence, and the US is trying to avoid it's past mistakes by lacking the selective service. Because, simply put, people died because we lacked it.
If we're losing a war overseas and somehow don't have the volunteer manpower to continue fighting it, it's time to go home, not force people who don't support it to die in its name.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50472278]If we're losing a war overseas and somehow don't have the volunteer manpower to continue fighting it, it's time to go home, not force people who don't support it to die in its name.[/QUOTE]
So what about the men abroad who live there, in the various nations we have military bases? Do we leave them there? Abandon our 900+ military bases and turn into a hermit nation like North Korea? What about our allies? Our families who live overseas? Our friends?
The consequences of the US "going home" would upend the entire planetary balance of power.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50471098]If that was to happen, resistance to an invasion of the continental US would largely come from our many armed civilians, which would make fighting a war here very difficult - more difficult than if they were all uniformed servicemen[/QUOTE]
the only problem is that with the US army gone the country would pretty much rapidly dissolve into a number of new political units and would cease to exist as a unified entity
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
i mean honestly when people say "armed civilians are going to protect america" what do you think will happen?
let's assume that the civilians win in the first place. how the hell will all of the individual militias agree to form a new country together? What's to stop Hawaii, Texas, or another state jumping ship during/after the conflict?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50472418]let's assume that the civilians win in the first place. how the hell will all of the individual militias agree to form a new country together? What's to stop Hawaii, Texas, or another state jumping ship during/after the conflict?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, Sobotnik. I don't know where the hell the conversation about US Citizens protecting the homeland came from. It's irrational and silly at best, and at worst has nothing to do with the Selective Service and is completely irrelevant.
The Selective Service is about finding potential soldiers in a time of [U]dire[/U] need, nothing to do with that time of need coinciding with a damned invasion.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50472418]let's assume that the civilians win in the first place. how the hell will all of the individual militias agree to form a new country together? What's to stop Hawaii, Texas, or another state jumping ship during/after the conflict?[/QUOTE]
At this point in time, if someone invaded the U.S. and actually touched U.S. soil, what happens afterwards is already up in the air, whether or not civilian militias are established. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in this instance.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50472584]At this point in time, if someone invaded the U.S. and actually touched U.S. soil, what happens afterwards is already up in the air, whether or not civilian militias are established. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in this instance.[/QUOTE]
It's a standard point of saying that at the point where a civilian force has upended whatever invading nation in the US, there wouldn't be a US anymore. Infrastructure, society, everything would be so blown to hell that it's highly probable that that the US would splinter into several nation-states.
Due to the obvious factors of local militias refusing orders from out of state, the difficulties of re-establishing simple order, not to mention law.
Point that's trying to be made is: (I assume anyways.) Is that if the US is that far gone, the draft would've already come and gone.. Along with the entire chain of command.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50472584]At this point in time, if someone invaded the U.S. and actually touched U.S. soil, what happens afterwards is already up in the air, whether or not civilian militias are established. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in this instance.[/QUOTE]
the point is that if you had to rely on civilian militias, the USA wouldn't exist anymore
just great, last year they reintroduced conscription here because those faggot russians just won't shut up with their threats
[QUOTE=download;50471132]If a bunch of incestuous child-fucking tribals in Afghanistan can hold up to a Nato force of 250k people, then a couple of "old boys" in the deep South are going to do far better.[/QUOTE]
except they really don't seeing as the casualties of the taliban are massive and we arent there to conquer afghanistan.
if we were there to annex the country like in some random world ending invasion of the us, then itd probably have gone down a bit differently.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50472046][citation needed]
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
The US military forced out every insurgency in every town in Iraq. The problem was they kept popping back up, but in the end they would eventually be overwhelmed again by modern military forces.
Again, look at the death toll of American soldiers compared to Iraqi insurgents. While the soldier's deaths were large, the insurgents deaths were far greater - and they still lost every battle.
We withdrew from Iraq, much like Vietnam, because of people back home wanting our troops to come back. An american insurgency would be dependent on the attacking nation heeding their populous to come back home, which is a lot to depend on as a winning strategy.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for agreeing with me.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;50472264]I'm just going to ignore the whole homeland invasion argument, as it has very, very little to do with the SS's actual reason for existing.
The draft in it's current form exists due to the downright [I][U][B]massive[/B][/U][/I] issues it takes if you do need to instate one, and you don't have it.
At one point the US decided it needed one, it wasn't because the homeland was in danger of invasion, it was because we were at war. It's a case of better having it and not needing it, and not having it, and needing it.
Lets say we remove the selective service, which isn't the draft in the first place. It's a list of able-bodied men of fighting age. Okay, it's removed.
Now as per a hypothetical, say we need soldiers. Able bodied soldiers of fighting age. At this point, it wouldn't be a question of volunteers, because all the volunteers would've already been sent to fight. It would be a question of taking people out of the working economy to continue a war that's so severe that our primary military requires extra bodies just to fill shoes.
If the US reaches that point during a war and it [I]lacks[/I] the selective service, every minute, every hour, is another life lost spent trying to find people.
Suddenly you're tasking massive amounts of manpower into simply tracking people down, compiling lists, etc.
There will be no point at which the US doesn't require such a thing, because no-one here can safely say that war will stop. I'm not talking about an invasion of the homeland, but a real war. We can hope and pray all we like that another one wont come along, but it's a question of lives. How many lives would you sacrifice, how many objectives, how much time and priority would you spend re-instituting such a measure, compared to already having it?
In the end, I'd say it's just a cost of living in the US as a Citizen. We are a nation that is never not at war, simply due to our global presence, and the US is trying to avoid it's past mistakes by lacking the selective service. Because, simply put, people died because we lacked it.[/QUOTE]
No, the selective service is a on-hold conscription that can be kicked into gear at the call of the government. As someone born with a cock, your choice is either sign up or go to prison. If it were just a list like you said where it didn't mean you were going to get drafted or punished [I]at all[/I] then none of us would have a problem.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50472858]Thanks for agreeing with me.
No, the selective service is a on-hold conscription that can be kicked into gear at the call of the government. As someone born with a cock, your choice is either sign up or go to prison. If it were just a list like you said where it didn't mean you were going to get drafted or punished [I]at all[/I] then none of us would have a problem.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere do I say it's "just a list". In fact, I said something quite staunchly the opposite. I said it's the cost of living in this country. Being a US Citizen comes with expectations, one of which is that you'll go to war if your nation needs you to. Your rights have nothing to do with it, nor your desires or thoughts about the government.
And yes, it's harsh, but that's the law. Yes, you can try to change it, but you're trying to alter the military's decision making with civilian thinking. What I'm saying overall is that removing it is inserting a vulnerability into the military's ability to put boots on the ground.
Personally, I'd rather that "peacetime" moral proclivities not factor into decisions that impact wartime. As a vast number of times that such has occurred, it's not the people at home in the US that have to pay the price, it's our military. In time, in energy, and in lives.
As for the Selective Service only mandating itself for males, that's actually set to change once the military has ironed out female combat roles, and all the hellfire that's going to bring.
oh this nonsense again. It'll be tabled and die. If it does happen to go to vote and pass, the government will still force service upon us if we're in dire straights.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50472642]the point is that if you had to rely on civilian militias, the USA wouldn't exist anymore[/QUOTE]
Right... except if you got to that point, whether or not militias existed, it wouldn't matter. You're making a shitty point because the existence of civilian militias at that point literally has no effect on how broken the US would be.
Either keep it in place but make no exceptions other than age so that even the rich man's son and the politician's daughter must fight, or remove it entirely and accept that maybe we SHOULDN'T throw lives away for political squabbles.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50474500]Either keep it in place but make no exceptions other than age so that even the rich man's son and the politician's daughter must fight, or remove it entirely and accept that maybe we SHOULDN'T throw lives away for political squabbles.[/QUOTE]
Only way to accomplish the first is get rid of the system entirely, which obviously won't happen. Any system is open to abuse.
The second is fundamentally impossible. We're human. We like Us. We don't like Them. We're gonna go beat up Them, and if you don't come with, you're obviously not Us. You might even be a friend of Them.
were we ever get to the point that the selective service was put into use, even if it were repealed a draft would be put into place
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50475060]were we ever get to the point that the selective service was put into use, even if it were repealed a draft would be put into place[/QUOTE]
The whole point of the Selective Service System is so that if we do need a draft, we don't have to waste time setting it up.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50475199]The whole point of the Selective Service System is so that if we do need a draft, we don't have to waste time setting it up.[/QUOTE]
this, 100x this, people don't seem to understand this, and i think europeans are confusing the issue with conscription which the US does not have unlike many European countries
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50473838]the existence of civilian militias at that point literally has no effect on how broken the US would be.[/QUOTE]
well yeah, because civilian militias can't protect anything
[editline]8th June 2016[/editline]
in fact many of them actually make the work of the real policing and military units even harder
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50476602]in fact many of them actually make the work of the real policing and military units even harder[/QUOTE]lmao what the fuck is this. Yeah, because American citizens are exactly like Iraqis and will absolutely use any excuse to band together so they can shoot at people from the next town over.
We've had militias in this country since the beginning, they're not at all a new concept. Every time the US military has touched an American civilian militia in war it's attempted to use the militia in a support capacity whenever possible so trained soldiers could be in front. It's ridiculous to think that in the event of an invasion of the United States the military wouldn't take a page out of the 18th-19th century and utilize any militia force that just so happens to be nearby.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50477053]lmao what the fuck is this. Yeah, because American citizens are exactly like Iraqis and will absolutely use any excuse to band together so they can shoot at people from the next town over.
We've had militias in this country since the beginning, they're not at all a new concept. Every time the US military has touched an American civilian militia in war it's attempted to use the militia in a support capacity whenever possible so trained soldiers could be in front. It's ridiculous to think that in the event of an invasion of the United States the military wouldn't take a page out of the 18th-19th century and utilize any militia force that just so happens to be nearby.[/QUOTE]
You talk about a time when a man's hunting rifle was on par with a soldier's gear. When the difference between a militiaman going to battle and a soldier going to battle was mostly marching vs walking regularly.
I am curious what you militias-can-defend-America guys think the average American can do to defend itself against an airstrike or a modern tank rolling down the street.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50477053]lmao what the fuck is this. Yeah, because American citizens are exactly like Iraqis and will absolutely use any excuse to band together so they can shoot at people from the next town over.
We've had militias in this country since the beginning, they're not at all a new concept. Every time the US military has touched an American civilian militia in war it's attempted to use the militia in a support capacity whenever possible so trained soldiers could be in front. It's ridiculous to think that in the event of an invasion of the United States the military wouldn't take a page out of the 18th-19th century and utilize any militia force that just so happens to be nearby.[/QUOTE]
are you sure?
because generally when countries get invasions of this scale, many paramilitary forces often dissolve into the countryside where they become brigands, bandits, revolutionaries, etc
in a country as diverse and massive as the united states, we're talking about a general collapse into anarchy if militias had to be relied upon. it isn't the 18th century where the USA is a few hundred thousand farmers protecting their homes - it's a third of a billion people (most of whom have never fired a gun or had any military experience in their life) crammed into cities over an entire continent with large cultural differences
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.