Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 406,586 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 30 | 
Jan 01, 2003, 07:50 PM
Updated
Jan 01, 2003 at 08:13 PM by sjoe
Of course the CCC doesn't exist anymore. Who said it did?
It was one of FDR's programs, among many which brought us: hundreds of public buildings such as schools and post offices which still stand and are used; highway bridges and tunnels; nature trails, etc. in our national parks; on and on--besides which purpose they served to train many of our citizens, teach useful skills (such as reading and showing up for work on time), and provide a means of living for its employees. A number of similar programs would be useful today for those draftees not required by or useful in the military.
This is NOT rocket science, after all.
 | | No. 31 |
Jan 01, 2003, 08:11 PM
Thanks for explaining the CCC, cause history is not generally my strong suit.  | | No. 33 |
Jan 02, 2003, 04:08 AM
Arguments so far have ignored what to me are the two central themes:
What would reinstatement of a national draft do to the military?
Would mandatory military service achieve the goals intended (i.e. better understanding of the military, reinstillation of civic virtue)?
To the first theme: The military, contrary to what some seem to believe, does NOT exist to instill what we consider to be "good values" on the nations youth. It has but one purpose. To defend the country from all enemies, primarily foreign, but with some special caveats may be used against domestic enemies. It is built, organized, and equipped to do this in the most efficient, rapid, and least costly way possible. Like it or not, it exists to inflict maximum damage and casualties on an enemy while suffering minimum damage and casualties itself. And, recent history has demonstrated that its pretty good at doing just that. But, there is something that needs to be understood, something that Bill and Hilarity never understood: IT IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR TESTING YOUR FAVORITE SOCIAL THEORIES, NOR IS IT A VEHICLE FOR INSTITUTING SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE US.
After Vietnam, we recognized the central unfairness of the draft, as it existed at the time. So, our politicians put an end to the draft and told the military, find a way to attract, recruit, and retain the numbers and quality you need. The military did exactly that, and in the process built the most efficient, most top to bottom professional, best, brightest military anywhere in the world. Why do we keep screwing with that? Reinstitution of the draft will force on the military large numbers of people it does not want, does not need, and cannot effectively employ. And the huge cost of feeding, clothing and housing such a military will cripple our ability to develop and field the most technologically advanced military hardware in the world. So, to win a war, casualties will of a necessity go up.
To the second theme, will it instill in our youth the knowledge and virtues other posters have outlined? Look no further than those countries that currently have mandatory military service to find your answers. In those countries (yes, I've been to some of them), there is no discernable difference between youth who have served their military obligation and those who have not. Also, there is no difference between their youth who have served and typical American youth. So, the short answer is no, it will not instill in the youth what we hope it will. Most of those coming out of the US military today will tell you that being in the military gave them a sense of direction and the self discipline to set, then achieve goals. But, those same people were self starters, who volunteered for service. It will not instill the same values in those forced to serve.
If you want to start some other social programs that involve youth in service to the community, fine. (Don't tax me at yet an ever higher rate to do so, but fine.) But, the US military as it is populated, organized, and equipped today, is capable of performing the missions we set before it. Don't screw with what works.
And, in case you have missed it elsewhere, SJoe, I too am a veteran. And if this is "way too long-winded," sorry about that.
Kevin McHugh
| | No. 34 |
Jan 02, 2003, 04:28 AM
 no
I don't want to train my two sons to kill people in other countries when I feel the US, Bush, is picking fights all over the world. If things like this occur it should be a U.N. issue not a U.S. issue which it is.
I have two eligble sons. I like other mothers, would be more inclined to agree to the draft IF we were fighting for our protection or pre-emptively....
Anything could be considered pre-emptive so I need to think on this more today before I post more. These are my gutt instant reactions.
My one son is a Jehovah's Witness, devout, they are not allowed to bear arms to another person. He would die first.
I am going to think on this more and post later today.
renerian
| | No. 35 |
Jan 02, 2003, 04:36 AM
Let me add. I did try to enlist as a military B.S. RN after 9/11 to serve my country and to help my fellow citizens if they needed help in a military sense. I was 45 and was told I was to old. I would help in a nursing sense if I could, but I cannot.
Second, my father and FIL fought in WW2. One talks about it like it was the best time in his life. He lived through DDay. The other was on a ship hit by a kama kazi plane and watched his best friend get blown to bits all over him, he lied to get in and was only 17 at the time. He was adversely affected by it and spent almost a year in a Europe burn unit and was so stressed by hospitals he would not go in one unless he was close to death which he was. He died 7 years ago. Two very different outcomes. Two lives changed forever. These stories are minor compared to countries devasted by war.
I think we should talk our brains out with these countries and when we are done we should talk some more and with U.N. support.
renerian
| | No. 36 |
Jan 02, 2003, 07:33 AM
Well we have a draft here. all boys 18 and older have to "serve" their country. (or as soon as they finish school, or their studies or whatever, normally they are about 18)
But.......... it doesn't have to be military. They can choose community work too.
When they go into the military, they have to stay 9 months, when they do community work they have to stay for a year. So even the ones that say, we cannot or may not carry weapons, have to do this duty.
Now, the big debate is, the gender....... should this come for the girls too? We'll see, till now there is no decision.
O yes, btw, all of them are lifelong reservists, normally they have a manouvre every 2 years for 10 days or so, and your workingplace has to give you this time (but not as a vacation, these are counted as "special days") (in case of my husband, well............ that's a different story, he had to use his vacationdays for that, o what fun!)
They get minimal wages in that time and free food and living quarters.
And normally they draft in the men around their 45 birthday and see how fit they really are, most of them don't have to come back any more!
Do I notice a big chance between "our boys" and others? No, not really, but at the moment these boys are really afraid of a big war, because they are not in the army by choice.
That's why I say: PEACE mr. Bush!
| | No. 37 |
Jan 02, 2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by kmchugh
If you want to start some other social programs that involve youth in service to the community, fine. (Don't tax me at yet an ever higher rate to do so, but fine.)  | | No. 38 |
Jan 02, 2003, 09:19 AM
I have a question for those who live elsewhere in the world besides the states. What happens in countries that mandate both men and women serve and if they both get called to serve and there are children involved. Who cares for them if a couple is called to serve???
renerian
| | No. 39 |
Jan 02, 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by kmchugh
Arguments so far have ignored what to me are the two central themes:
What would reinstatement of a national draft do to the military?
Would mandatory military service achieve the goals intended (i.e. better understanding of the military, reinstillation of civic virtue)?
To the first theme: The military, contrary to what some seem to believe, does NOT exist to instill what we consider to be "good values" on the nations youth. It has but one purpose. To defend the country from all enemies, primarily foreign, but with some special caveats may be used against domestic enemies. It is built, organized, and equipped to do this in the most efficient, rapid, and least costly way possible. Like it or not, it exists to inflict maximum damage and casualties on an enemy while suffering minimum damage and casualties itself. And, recent history has demonstrated that its pretty good at doing just that. But, there is something that needs to be understood, something that Bill and Hilarity never understood: IT IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR TESTING YOUR FAVORITE SOCIAL THEORIES, NOR IS IT A VEHICLE FOR INSTITUTING SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE US.
After Vietnam, we recognized the central unfairness of the draft, as it existed at the time. So, our politicians put an end to the draft and told the military, find a way to attract, recruit, and retain the numbers and quality you need. The military did exactly that, and in the process built the most efficient, most top to bottom professional, best, brightest military anywhere in the world. Why do we keep screwing with that? Reinstitution of the draft will force on the military large numbers of people it does not want, does not need, and cannot effectively employ. And the huge cost of feeding, clothing and housing such a military will cripple our ability to develop and field the most technologically advanced military hardware in the world. So, to win a war, casualties will of a necessity go up.
To the second theme, will it instill in our youth the knowledge and virtues other posters have outlined? Look no further than those countries that currently have mandatory military service to find your answers. In those countries (yes, I've been to some of them), there is no discernable difference between youth who have served their military obligation and those who have not. Also, there is no difference between their youth who have served and typical American youth. So, the short answer is no, it will not instill in the youth what we hope it will. Most of those coming out of the US military today will tell you that being in the military gave them a sense of direction and the self discipline to set, then achieve goals. But, those same people were self starters, who volunteered for service. It will not instill the same values in those forced to serve.
If you want to start some other social programs that involve youth in service to the community, fine. (Don't tax me at yet an ever higher rate to do so, but fine.) But, the US military as it is populated, organized, and equipped today, is capable of performing the missions we set before it. Don't screw with what works.
And, in case you have missed it elsewhere, SJoe, I too am a veteran. And if this is "way too long-winded," sorry about that.
Kevin McHugh
I swear, I could read your and Helen's posts from now on...
and never loose interest! Excellent post once again, Kevin!!
|
| 283 members
3,043 guests 3,326
|
World News & Politics