Seriously. Outside the Navy and the general officer corps, think of the impact having a draft every time we wanted to play army somewhere would have on the decision to do so.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

Seriously. Outside the Navy and the general officer corps, think of the impact having a draft every time we wanted to play army somewhere would have on the decision to do so.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

The poor would still get drafted first.

Seriously. Outside the Navy and the general officer corps, think of the impact having a draft every time we wanted to play army somewhere would have on the decision to do so.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

So you want no standing professional army because that will help prevent US military intervention's which you do not agree with politically?

So you want no standing professional army because that will help prevent US military intervention's which you do not agree with politically?
I think Ken's point is more towards that it's easy to ignore the real costs of the war when your kid isn't getting drug over to Iraq to die. SOmething like one senator has a kid over there fighting now. Easy to say we should fight when it's someone else's kids dying.

I think Ken's point is more towards that it's easy to ignore the real costs of the war when your kid isn't getting drug over to Iraq to die. SOmething like one senator has a kid over there fighting now. Easy to say we should fight when it's someone else's kids dying.

From a historical perspective the cost of the Iraq war in terms of soldiers lives is minimal......the material cost....and the geopolitical consequences are more significant.

From a historical perspective the cost of the Iraq war in terms of soldiers lives is minimal......the material cost....and the geopolitical consequences are more significant.

Who cares about money? If your kid is dying you tend to look at going to war a bit differently.

Seriously. Outside the Navy and the general officer corps, think of the impact having a draft every time we wanted to play army somewhere would have on the decision to do so.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

I tend to agree for different reasons. The draft didn't keep us out of Korea or Vietnam and had little impact on ending either conflict. Wars are determined and fought over national interests and this one is no different in spite of the view that it is from those who oppose it.
I think we all had a better understanding of who we were and what we stand for when we had a draft. We have two generations of young people with no military experience and no idea what that sacrifice is about. We aren't playing army today and never have, it isn't a game and in our political differences, the soldiers tend to become a convenient part of the argument and their sacrifice gets overlooked and the causes they fight for get diminished when it becomes inconvenient to acknowledge either.

Who cares about money? If your kid is dying you tend to look at going to war a bit differently.

I stated a fact.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

I think we would be in Iraq right now if we needed to hire mercenaries to do it. That was what this adminstration wanted to do.

Sadly, I don't think having a draft makes much of an impact on decision makers who get us into wars. It had no impact on us getting into and continually escalating the Vietnam war.

Conscript armies are (all things being equal) inferior to professional standing armies.

I tend to agree for different reasons. The draft didn't keep us out of Korea or Vietnam and had little impact on ending either conflict. Wars are determined and fought over national interests and this one is no different in spite of the view that it is from those who oppose it.
I think we all had a better understanding of who we were and what we stand for when we had a draft. We have two generations of young people with no military experience and no idea what that sacrifice is about. We aren't playing army today and never have, it isn't a game and in our political differences, the soldiers tend to become a convenient part of the argument and their sacrifice gets overlooked and the causes they fight for get diminished when it becomes inconvenient to acknowledge either.

Especially when we send them into combat without the proper equipment to protect themselves like body armor. Or, when we bring the injured home to be treated at places like Walter Reed. :rolleyes:

And when Bush denies giving them a raise...etc.

This is how the Repubs treat the troops...they're expendable. Cost of doing business...etc.

Seriously. Outside the Navy and the general officer corps, think of the impact having a draft every time we wanted to play army somewhere would have on the decision to do so.

Think we'd be in Iraq right now if they needed a draft to do it?

I don't like that idea - I wouldn't want my kids to be forced into the military.

If you really want to cause leaders to pause before sending our troops off to battle, simply put women up on the front lines. Let them go out on patrols getting blown up; let them defuse roadside bombs..... girls aren't considered the throwaways that boys are. Knowing they'd be putting our daughters in harm's way might have kept us out of Iraq.

I stated a fact.

not really..you stated an opinion.

Especially when we send them into combat without the proper equipment to protect themselves like body armor. Or, when we bring the injured home to be treated at places like Walter Reed. :rolleyes:

And when Bush denies giving them a raise...etc.

This is how the Repubs treat the troops...they're expendable. Cost of doing business...etc.

Well, Harry is blocking their raises now. Got his though.

A well-educated and informed electorate would have kept us out of Iraq. You want our leaders to be more responsible? Educate the public to be socially and politically aware in order to keep a tight leash on our elected representatives.

So you want no standing professional army because that will help prevent US military intervention's which you do not agree with politically?

Iraq is an example, not the reason.

[One of] The problem with standing armies is that they're unprofitable when unused. That's one hell of a motivation for war, especially when you have little to fear for your own infrastructure. As you point out, the cost "in terms of soldier's lives is minimal" in comparison. The war in Iraq has always been a exercise in domestic political gamesmanship, with the opportunists on both sides using every tool at their disposal to paint the other in a negative light. The general American public, the overwhelming majority, has never been behind a decades long engagement. Never. Remove the large standing army and you add a significant political cost to going to war that wouldn't be so easily gamed by those who stand to profit monetarily and/or politically.

A well-educated and informed electorate would have kept us out of Iraq. You want our leaders to be more responsible? Educate the public to be socially and politically aware in order to keep a tight leash on our elected representatives.

If you want top be socially and politically aware, all you need to do is watch FOX.

I think we would be in Iraq right now if we needed to hire mercenaries to do it. That was what this adminstration wanted to do.

Sadly, I don't think having a draft makes much of an impact on decision makers who get us into wars. It had no impact on us getting into and continually escalating the Vietnam war.



However, the specter of Vietnam has had a tremendous impact on the war in Iraq. Notice that, no matter how badly undermanned we are, there is still no serious talk of a draft?

From a historical perspective the cost of the Iraq war in terms of soldiers lives is minimal......the material cost....and the geopolitical consequences are more significant.

Stand in front of a family who lost a relative or a child in Iraq or Afghanistan and tell them that the cost is minimal, in a historical perspective of course. Man, that's just a sad argument right there, well, not even an argument. Go stand in front of a batallion of Marines that just got back, and say the same thing. Methinks you would not get out alive. You can't seriously be that dumb can you?

Material cost? Billions approaching trillions, yeah, just a "drop in the bucket".

Well, Harry is blocking their raises now. Got his though.

I believe it was the republicans who filibustered and defeated that bill, not the democrats. It wasn't Harry who denied them my friend, and to suggest otherwise, is not looking at what happened.

Conscript armies are (all things being equal) inferior to professional standing armies.

Israel has an almost all "conscript" army, and they are pretty good at what they do. You know, compulsory military service and all.

An all volunteer force has increased the quality of Soldier to great degree. Soldiers will get killed regardless if they are conscripted or volunteers. With an all volunteer force you get a dedicated and motivated Soldier that is capable of engaging the enemy and coming out victorious . Don't sell it short.

Israel has an almost all "conscript" army, and they are pretty good at what they do. You know, compulsory military service and all.


A compulsory 2 yr service program would ensure that we are always ready to defend ourselves if the worst case happened...

A compulsory 2 yr service program would ensure that we are always ready to defend ourselves if the worst case happened...

A 2 year military service with follow up reserve responsibilities and training.

Stand in front of a family who lost a relative or a child in Iraq or Afghanistan and tell them that the cost is minimal, in a historical perspective of course. Man, that's just a sad argument right there, well, not even an argument. Go stand in front of a batallion of Marines that just got back, and say the same thing. Methinks you would not get out alive. You can't seriously be that dumb can you?

Material cost? Billions approaching trillions, yeah, just a "drop in the bucket".

He is right though. Soldier's lives are spent like currency. Lives are cheap. We see it every single day as we deny care to the sick based on their ability to pay. As wrong and ugly as it may be it is the cold hard reality of what our society has become and it's not necessarily a recent metamorphosis.

An all volunteer force has increased the quality of Soldier to great degree. Soldiers will get killed regardless if they are conscripted or volunteers. With an all volunteer force you get a dedicated and motivated Soldier that is capable of engaging the enemy and coming out victorious . Don't sell it short.


That's the problem. It's too profitable to engage the enemy... especially when the enemy has no real capacity to threaten your infrastructure.

From a historical perspective the cost of the Iraq war in terms of soldiers lives is minimal......the material cost....and the geopolitical consequences are more significant.

It's statements like these that confirm what I thought about you all along. You're a moreon neocon.

This is exactly how they justify their position on the war.

If you want top be socially and politically aware, all you need to do is watch FOX.

I was about to answer him by saying something to the effect of, we don't live in a perfect world..... but your response pretty much summed that up.

I thought that I heard on NPR last week that there are more "mersenaries" in Iraq than US Troops. IF you count all of the hired guns, engineers, admin types, and yes, many of them are not US citizens but ALL are being paid by the US, then the sum total of "mercenaries" is higher than that of actual US troops.

It how the deficit of troops is being made up.

Especially when we send them into combat without the proper equipment to protect themselves like body armor. Or, when we bring the injured home to be treated at places like Walter Reed. :rolleyes:

And when Bush denies giving them a raise...etc.

This is how the Repubs treat the troops...they're expendable. Cost of doing business...etc.


a break, that is how EVERY administration has treated the troops, you are the property of the US government, and they have every right to use you however they want. That's what you sign up for, that's what those of us who are, or have served, signed up for. I didn't join the military hoping for a "raise"....:rolleyes:

a break, that is how EVERY administration has treated the troops, you are the property of the US government, and they have every right to use you however they want. That's what you sign up for, that's what those of us who are, or have served, signed up for. I didn't join the military hoping for a "raise"....:rolleyes:

Yeah it's no night at the Hilton, but any soldier should expect that an administration as hawkish as this one would at least pay as much attention to basic safety gear and treatment of the wounded and psychologically scarred as they do to the PR campaign they have been relentlessly flogging since the start of this fiasco.

I believe it was the republicans who filibustered and defeated that bill, not the democrats. It wasn't Harry who denied them my friend, and to suggest otherwise, is not looking at what happened.

No, after the pajama party failed, Harry pulled the military apprpriations budget from the floor and it includes raises and funds for vehicles that are supposedly safe against those roadside bomb attacks that are doing so much damage. Be proud and loud, this is what you elected all those Democrats for, it's showdown time and to hell with the troops. :)

This is one of those rare cases where I will actually draw from Heinlein and note that if the people won't willingly enlist to fight, then the cause isn't worth fighting.

I'm sorry but I cannot support a draft in any form. I am saddened every time an American soldier is injured or killed, but at least we can say that at this point, everyone serving in Iraq is doing so willingly and they knew what they were getting into. There are a lot of people in this country who do not believe in the cause, and I don't think it would be right to send them into the fight. And FWIW, the military probably wouldn't want those people anyway. I'd rather have five volunteers than ten slaves.

I think the main problem with our all-volunteer military in Iraq is that it was too small to do the post-regular-war job. Our ground forces are sized to fight either a short war on their own or a big war with allies. The regular war with the Iraqi military is what our all-volunteer force did well. It was after that that we got into manpower problems.

We went into Iraq on Wolfowitz's mistaken assumption that it could not possibly take more troops to occupy a country than it took to beat its regular military. His assumption was fueled, in part, by the knowledge that (1) we did not have large numbers of allies and (2) we didn't have enough troops to make up the gap left by the absence of allies. In the absence of having the people, it wasn't even theoretically possible to need those people according to Wolfie.

The problem after the regular war was that there was no back-up option. Our 120k-160k ground forces are basically as many troops as we can put into Iraq on a rotating basis without leaving large gaps. That's it. So they're left to play whack-a-mole while the Iraqi government dithers over just about EVERYTHING. A draft would have given enough troops to properly man post-war Iraq, but it would have had to have been in place for a year before the Iraq war to have mattered.

It's statements like these that confirm what I thought about you all along. You're a moreon neocon.

This is exactly how they justify their position on the war.

You think this war has yielded historically high casualties?!

That's the problem. It's too profitable to engage the enemy... especially when the enemy has no real capacity to threaten your infrastructure.

Not really. War is a significant net cost to a state.

Not really. War is a significant net cost to a state.To the state, maybe, but not necessarily to the power elite who make war decisions.

Not really. War is a significant net cost to a state.

Not all wars. There are huge sectors of the US economy that are turning record profits directly and indirectly because of the war in Iraq.

Not all wars. There are huge sectors of the US economy that are turning record profits directly and indirectly because of the war in Iraq.

Like I said war is a net cost.......unless significant 'booty' is yielded.

Show me how the Iraq war is a net profit for the US.

Like I said war is a net cost.......unless significant 'booty' is yielded.

Show me how the Iraq war is a net profit for the US.


This isn't the Roman Era.... raiding parties aren't out for booty.

For the half trillion we'll have invested in the war, our ROI in the industries that directly benefit from the war -- keep in mind that the military-industrial complex is an enormous portion of the US economy -- will surpass that investment cost in short order. You, yourself, can thank the US taxpayer for improving your quality of life with little investment on your part. You've invested next to nothing and stand to reap the same rewards we do.

When the state is owned by the corps, as America is, investment in war is investment in their own interests.

From a historical perspective the cost of the Iraq war in terms of soldiers lives is minimal......the material cost....and the geopolitical consequences are more significant.


What does your mother's life cost?

This isn't the Roman Era.... raiding parties aren't out for booty.

For the half trillion we'll have invested in the war, our ROI in the industries that directly benefit from the war -- keep in mind that the military-industrial complex is an enormous portion of the US economy -- will surpass that investment cost in short order. You, yourself, can thank the US taxpayer for improving your quality of life with little investment on your part. You've invested next to nothing and stand to reap the same rewards we do.

When the state is owned by the corps, as America is, investment in war is investment in their own interests.

What are you talking about?

How does spending money on bullets and bombs, and feeding all those soldiers (who contribute zero to the economy themselves) equate to 'investment'?

That is unless you are subscribing to a Keynesian economic philosophy; that state spending can stimulate a depressed economy. Of course spending on war is no more useful that paying men to dig ditches....just a means to an end.

You could be subscribing to a 'military-industrial' complex conspiracy model of course. In that case I hope your tin foil hat is the right fit.

What does your mother's life cost?

No need to appeal to emotion to muddy the waters of this debate.

But if that is all you can contribute...so be it.

To the state, maybe, but not necessarily to the power elite who make war decisions.

Yup, they're usually the war profiteers. It goes as far back as the Revolutionary war for the US.

What does your mother's life cost?

How does that muddy the waters? How much is your mother's life worth to you? How much is your brother's life worth to you?

It's obvious rydster views the lives of the men/women in the military as expendable. Most neocons do.

It's obvious rydster views the lives of the men/women in the military as expendable. Most neocons do.

That is an incredibly arrogant piece of misinformation.

It's obvious rydster views the lives of the men/women in the military as expendable. Most neocons do.

Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

On previous threads I have questioned the role of women in the military.

Not sure why you think I am a 'neocon'....or that 'neocons' think that?

To the state, maybe, but not necessarily to the power elite who make war decisions.

The same 'power elite' who you elect?

No need to appeal to emotion to muddy the waters of this debate.

But if that is all you can contribute...so be it.


then answer the question.....you stoic guy you..

so the war has cost us right around 500 billion over the past few years...

I'm sorry, but this country spent over 340 billion $$ at Wal-Mart in 2006 alone...

this war, despite its critics, is really not that expensive in the big picture...

don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the war one iota..never have...but I think the financial argument is thrown around way too liberally without much context or perspective..

when all the moreons that keep Wal-Mart afloat boycot that monster, I'll be impressed by the financial windfall..

has no one calculated how much the war has invested in the country too? war is big business and it does trickle down to each consumer between our borders...hell I bought FLIR stock about a year ago @ 20$/share...it topped 50$/share yesterday for the first time...am I complaining? point being, $$ is brought back into the country also...sort of like recycled federal tax dollars...although the only organization profitting is the fed government...they get to tax it all more than once.

rydster your argument is misplaced as it is a rhetorical and/or theoretical one based with historical perspective...the others are arguing here and now facts and emotions...it makes you come off like a heartless goon, by the way. just saying..

yes, I think a volunteer army might put some things in perspective for those who actually serve their country in that capacity...but it won't happen so what's the point of this post, exactly?

rydster your argument is misplaced as it is a rhetorical and/or theoretical one based with historical perspective...the others are arguing here and now facts and emotions...it makes you come off like a heartless goon, by the way. just saying..


My argument is not misplaced at all. The casualty rate of the US military in Iraq is minimal compared to numerous wars of the past....this is a fact. Also a fact is that the US military is all volunteer...there are no executions for deserters here....no press ganging....all made choices to potentially fight and die.

Deaths do not a bad war make.....any other opinion is just affected sentimentality.....quite fake and disingenuous.

My argument is not misplaced at all. The casualty rate of the US military in Iraq is minimal compared to numerous wars of the past....this is a fact. Also a fact is that the US military is all volunteer...there are no executions for deserters here....no press ganging....all made choices to potentially fight and die.

Deaths do not a bad war make.....any other opinion is just affected sentimentality.....quite fake and disingenuous.

As painful as it is, I have to agree with you.

My argument is not misplaced at all. The casualty rate of the US military in Iraq is minimal compared to numerous wars of the past....this is a fact. Also a fact is that the US military is all volunteer...there are no executions for deserters here....no press ganging....all made choices to potentially fight and die.

Deaths do not a bad war make.....any other opinion is just affected sentimentality.....quite fake and disingenuous.

On one hand you say "the casualty rate of the US military in Iraq is minimal in comparison," then you go on to say "Deaths do not a bad war make..."

Do you even see how you contradict yourself in a single post? Just like a good neocon... Please have someone feed the gerbil.

On one hand you say "the casualty rate of the US military in Iraq is minimal in comparison," then you go on to say "Deaths do not a bad war make..."

Do you even see how you contradict yourself in a single post? Just like a good neocon... Please have someone feed the gerbil.

Different arguments but no contradiction.

As painful as it is, I have to agree with you.

Indeed. That soldiers are dying is no logical reason (in itself) to stop a war; even in 'just' wars combatants die.

The anti-war crowd is quite disingenuously whipping up and exploiting emotion about soldiers dying to gather support....but this is just a cynical excuse not to tackle the strategic and geo-political issues which are key....one suspects because they cannot.

The anti-war crowd is quite disingenuously whipping up and exploiting emotion about soldiers dying to gather support....While the pro-war crowd whips ups and exploits images and memories of 9-11. Who is the more disingenuous? At least the death of soldiers is a fact. The connection between 9-11 and Iraq is a complete falsehood.

Certainly you are correct that the fact of soldiers dying is not in itself a reason to end the war. The reason - according to the anti-war crowd - is that the soldiers are dying for a cause that is geopolitically unjust.