Does Anyone Feel a Draft?

[drkitten]

Besides, if that particular financial tactic is from Economics 101, WHY then aren't U.S. corporations increasing the benefits and pay of what few American workers they still have? It couldn't have anything to do with the refusal to cut down their profit margin just a bit, could it?

Why do US corporations want to increase pay and benefits for their US workers? They have an oversupply of workers as it is (one of the benefits of outsourcing), so the idea of making the oversupply worse would be silly.

If there were actually a world-wide labor shortage, you would quickly see corporations offering better pay and benefits. You still see that in some area where there is such a shortage, for example, in nursing and security professionals.

 

[Kerberos]

I think that's the real problem. There are basically two groups of people who you can get to do any given task -- those who want to do it (because they feel, for whatever reason, that it's the right thing to do and are willing to do it on that basis) and those who will do it, but only if bribed.

"Volunteer" recruitment tends to draw preferentially from the first group, people who, among other beliefs, support the war. This demographic is shrinking for various reasons -- I believe one of them is the political mismanagement from the White House, but I'm sure there's some neocon on this board who will want to tell me that, "no, it's caused by pixies." Whatever.

I'm not exactly neocon, but I suspect support for almost any war is high in the beginning and then decreases as the "rally to the flag" effect wanes.

 

[merphie]

I'm not exactly neocon, but I suspect support for almost any war is high in the beginning and then decreases as the "rally to the flag" effect wanes.

Which is probably about the time coffins start coming home.

 

[drkitten]

I'm not exactly neocon, but I suspect support for almost any war is high in the beginning and then decreases as the "rally to the flag" effect wanes.

I think I disagree, and offer as a counter-example the British reaction to the Second World War; if I remember correctly, public support for the war was actually lower during the so-called Phoney War (Sitzkrieg) immediately following the fall of France, but picked up substantially during the Battle of Britain and remained high more or less until the end.

I think the truth is somewhat more, or perhaps less, complex. People will support the war if they feel there is a genuine reason to support it. For example, when you see "our boys" flying through the sky in their Spitfires and getting shot down defending Aunt Petunia's little tea shop -- when your children are being shipped out to the country because it's too dangerous for them to live in London -- you will likely support the war.

On the other hand, when the war is just a dangerous inconvenience -- when your sons and friends are dying half a world a way, but they don't seem to make you any safer by their deaths, then it's hard to support the war.

Are Americans safer now that there are thousands upon thousands of US soldiers in Iraq? I don't know --- but I don't think I know a single Yank who feels safer. And every Brit I know who grew up watching the Spitfires felt safer knowing they were in the air and that someone was protecting them from the German bombers.

 

[tedly]

Support for a war is probably linked to being attacked. I just read Len Deighton'sBlood Tears and Folly. He contends that after the attack on Pearl there was little likelihood that Congress would have given FDR a war on Germany. Four days later Hitler declared war on the US. In the next six months U-boats sank 2 million tons of shipping in US waters, and the US let $100 B in contracts for war spending, more than the GDP in 1940.

 

[crackmonkey]

Baby Bush went on record to say that "Iraq was an immediate threat,"

I'd be interested in seeing a link or some evidence of this statement.

 

[President Bush]

There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein. The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat. There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.

 

[Kerberos]

I think I disagree, and offer as a counter-example the British reaction to the Second World War; if I remember correctly, public support for the war was actually lower during the so-called Phoney War (Sitzkrieg) immediately following the fall of France, but picked up substantially during the Battle of Britain and remained high more or less until the end.

The phoney war preceded the fall of France it didn't follow it. Also I think that the reason for the low support is in the name. It was a phoney war, and thus didn't provoke the usual rally to the flag effect.

I think the truth is somewhat more, or perhaps less, complex. People will support the war if they feel there is a genuine reason to support it. For example, when you see "our boys" flying through the sky in their Spitfires and getting shot down defending Aunt Petunia's little tea shop -- when your children are being shipped out to the country because it's too dangerous for them to live in London -- you will likely support the war.

On the other hand, when the war is just a dangerous inconvenience -- when your sons and friends are dying half a world a way, but they don't seem to make you any safer by their deaths, then it's hard to support the war.

Are Americans safer now that there are thousands upon thousands of US soldiers in Iraq? I don't know --- but I don't think I know a single Yank who feels safer. And every Brit I know who grew up watching the Spitfires felt safer knowing they were in the air and that someone was protecting them from the German bombers.

Well I'm not saying that declining rally to the flag effect is the only reason for waning support. There are obviously a lot of factors, but I don't think you can automatically attribute falling support for the war to the administration botching it.

 

[Snide]

If there was a draft, my son would be in Canada while you and your son were still looking for your car keys.

I dislike Bush just strongly enough to have voted against him, but I'm with you on this one.

 

[Luke T.]

A great way to get out of involuntary service, and probably a little less stigmatizing than admitting to be gay. I'd be worried that, by the time the draft rolled around, they'd be happy to take crack addicts off the street.


And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is friggin Iran. And it's five, six, seven open up those pearly gates, ain't no time to wonder why, whoopie we're all gonna die!

Or you and a friend could walk into the draft office and sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", in harmony, and walk out...

 

[Luke T.]

Not to mention in WWII everyone was involved. Celebrities, athletes, children of the wealthy. They didn't just join the military, most of them fought. Ted Williams flew a fighter, I believe.

Compare that to todays conflict, in which less then half the country really supports the war now, and even the supporters have Luke T's attitude. He's not going to serve, and he'd rather see his son in Canada then Iraq. Is it any suprise they have recruiting problems. I'm not sure better pay would help either, unless it was a big raise.

My son has expressed an interest in the military. He wants to be a Navy SEAL of all things. I write it off to dad-worship, and have expressed my opposition. I said something stupidly dad-like along the lines of, "I served 20 years so you wouldn't have to."

If my son was in the military in combat, I'll be honest with you; I'd be burning incense, sacrificing goats, chanting my ass off, and wearing the biggest crystal on the market. Hell, I might even vote Democrat!

 

[Cleon]

Or you and a friend could walk into the draft office and sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", in harmony, and walk out...

Yeah, but they'd just think you're both ******s and won't take either of you.

Now, if three people walked into the draft office and sang Alice's Restaurant, in harmony, they might think it's an organization.

And can you imagine fifty people a day, coming in and singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant? Friends, they might think it's a movement. And that's what it is--the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you have to do to join it is to sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar...


You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant. (ceptin' Alice)
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant.
Walk right in, it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track!
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant.

 

[Mephisto]

I am a "Bush lover", apologist, whatever.

I am also a 20 year veteran of the military.

I have a 16 year old son.

There is not going to be a draft. Period.

If there was a draft, my son would be in Canada while you and your son were still looking for your car keys.

I am a Bush-hater, and accept no apologies whatsoever.

I am a disabled Viet-era veteran

I believe that there positively WON'T be a draft when I believe there will be, "no new taxes."

In the event of a draft, my son and I would be in Mexico before you could say, "Hola, amigo."

P.S. I spite of the fact that you support Bush and his politics, you apparently don't support them enough to send your son to fight for them? There might be hope for you, yet.

 

[Mephisto]

I think not!

Correction. That was Clinton.

I think you're wrong. Assault-"type" weapons were banned by Daddy Bush first (after assuring the NRA while campaigning that no such ban would come about) in 1989. Clinton did expand the ban, but that was expected.
________

"Even President George H.W. Bush believed in the great impact of keeping assault weapons assault weapons off of the streets. In 1989 he stopped imports of certain assault rifles, resulting in a 45% reduction in the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime in one year. "

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/topics/awban/default.htm
________

"For the record, importation of AK-47's, Uzi's and other foreign-made military-style semiautomatic firearms was prohibited by a 1989 executive order issued by President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/assaultweaponban9_13_04.html

 

[Tony]

"For the record, importation of AK-47's, Uzi's and other foreign-made military-style semiautomatic firearms was prohibited by a 1989 executive order issued by President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/assaultweaponban9_13_04.html

Executive order? WTF is the point of a congress, a supreme court, and a constiution if the "president" (dictator in this case) can unilaterally make law?

 

[Mephisto]

Well, almost everyone . . .

Not to mention in WWII everyone was involved. Celebrities, athletes, children of the wealthy. They didn't just join the military, most of them fought.

Well, almost everyone, Renfield; that bastion of military patriotism, John Wayne, didn't serve (and neither did the [belated] cinematic hero of the Vietnam war, Sylvestor Stallone).

 

[Mephisto]

Which is probably about the time coffins start coming home.

Or around the time that anyone becomes aware of the coffins coming home. So far, around 1,700 have made it home with no fanfare whatsoever. The Bush administration isn't just going to let people whose sons and daughters are actually fighting and dying in Iraq see those flag-draped rows on the news. Can't let people actually weigh the costs of rebuilding Iraq and rebuilding America, can we?

 

[merphie]

Re: I think not!

I think you're wrong. Assault-"type" weapons were banned by Daddy Bush first (after assuring the NRA while campaigning that no such ban would come about) in 1989. Clinton did expand the ban, but that was expected.
________

"Even President George H.W. Bush believed in the great impact of keeping assault weapons assault weapons off of the streets. In 1989 he stopped imports of certain assault rifles, resulting in a 45% reduction in the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime in one year. "

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/topics/awban/default.htm
________

"For the record, importation of AK-47's, Uzi's and other foreign-made military-style semiautomatic firearms was prohibited by a 1989 executive order issued by President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/assaultweaponban9_13_04.html

Although you provided a link for your quotes, the first one gives no sources or details on any law(s) or executive orders that Bush, Sr implimented. So it is impossible to tell what they are talking about. More like they dreamed up something which is common with the gun control advocates.

Bush Sr, may have banned specific weapons by executive order. For example, the AK-47 can still be imported as long as it is not made in China. I legally bought a Romainia (Spelling?) AK-47. Chinese Ak-47's are banned because there were used in a shooting spree in California.

The second quote means absolutely nothing since fully automatic weapons of any kind can not be purchased in the USA without a specific permit from the federal government. For me to own any kind of fully automatic weapon would be illegal and I would be subject to 10 years in jail for each violation. This has been in effect since the late 1930's and 1968.

So again the link and statement means absolutely nothing. His executive order was just a "feel good" measure designed to please the gun control groups.

Clinton actually signed into law a bill that banned a wide range of guns based on their appearance and 19 specific makes/models that were available to the average citizen. This is the "Assault Weapons" ban signed in 1994 that expired in 2004.

I'm afraid you are wrong and it was Clinton. You should check your information a little better. Gun control advocates are not a good place for accurate information.

 

[merphie]

Or around the time that anyone becomes aware of the coffins coming home. So far, around 1,700 have made it home with no fanfare whatsoever. The Bush administration isn't just going to let people whose sons and daughters are actually fighting and dying in Iraq see those flag-draped rows on the news. Can't let people actually weigh the costs of rebuilding Iraq and rebuilding America, can we?

I don't think we should parade them around. Every time I see the news I am reminded of how many people have died in Iraq.

I think it is inappropriate that they show the coffins.

 

[Mephisto]

Or you and a friend could walk into the draft office and sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", in harmony, and walk out...

Yay! Does that mean you're no longer going to sit on the Group Dubya bench?