Huh, the Election thread just got cleaned up. D:
My last response was...
"It has? I'm not especially well-versed in history; you're probably giving me too much credit if you assume that I know what I'm talking about whenever I run my mouth about something.
My opposition to a military draft is part of a broader opposition against the government dictating your life to any great extent when it's not absolutely necessary. I think people should generally be able to live their lives however they want to (save for doing things that are illegal or hurt someone else) and that the only demands placed upon them otherwise are those that are necessary, ie paying taxes; basically taking control of someone's life by forcing them to live at a certain place and perform a certain job function for a few years or so oversteps that bound and enters the realm of being overly intrusive.
The question, then, becomes whether the draft is in fact necessary. I've always presumed that it's not for two reasons: a) The majority of Vietnam soldiers were volunteers, a war that didn't really relate to America much, and so I'd assume that if people were reared up to go defend Vietnam, they'd be similarly gung-ho about defending their own soil (ie World War II with Pearl Harbor); and b) to my understanding, the draft has historically been implemented almost immediately after the declaration of war. The fact that declarations of war are usually followed by a declaration of the draft in such quick fashion give me the impression that the government doesn't wait to see if enough volunteers will sign up to suit their needs, and that the draft is implemented more as a first resort rather than a last.
If I'm mistaken, then okay; I'll concede the point, and have less resentment towards the concept of a military draft. A necessary evil is still an evil, though, so I hope that the need for a draft is never again raised.
And yes, people can be drafted into non-combat positions, as Ithreko mentioned. I have to disagree with your word choice of "petty bubble," also. Good cause or not, people are reluctant to fight in wars because they know that more than likely they'll contribute rather little to that cause. A single soldier generally makes about as much difference as a grain of sand to a beach. To say that a good cause should be enough to convince people to just man the fuck up and get over it, and that not wishing to throw yourself into hell on earth to play a tiny, inconsequential role that will leave you permanently scarred is just 'petty,' childish, petulant angst... well, I have trouble thinking of anything that isn't petty if that's the case. My dad signed up for Vietnam at the age of 17 because he wanted to help liberate the South Vietnamese; he fought in the single bloodiest province of Vietnam with the highest death toll of any location in the war, spent the next 25 years a PTSD-ridden raging, suicidal wreck, and just like any other common soldier probably didn't contribute too terribly much to the outcome of the war. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to follow in those footsteps."