Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service


PDA






AZTOY
December 30, 2002, 09:49 PM
Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service
Monday, Dec. 30, 2002 9:35 a.m. EST
CNSNews.com - Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., will introduce a bill in the next congressional session to make military service mandatory.

"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the Free World against the threats coming to us," said Rangel on CNN's "Late Edition."

Rangel, who voted against a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in October, believes mandatory enlistment for men ages 18-26 would serve as a deterrent to war.

"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress," Rangel said. "I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.'"

The last time the U.S. had a draft was in 1971, when it was discontinued under then-President Richard Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War.

Prior to Nixon's ending conscription in the face of massive protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. had continued with a draft since World War II, in peacetime and in wartime, under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.

Rangel, who argues that that we should not be more worried about Iraq than any of our other enemies, did not reveal specifics of his proposal during the interview.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/12/30/95025
*** :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
clem
December 30, 2002, 09:52 PM
Aw yes, when idiots speak, just to hear themselves talk.

Gordon
December 30, 2002, 09:56 PM
I guess the honorable Rangel didn't see "Gangs of New York" (or know his NYC history):D

Monkeyleg
December 30, 2002, 11:14 PM
In Rangel's defense: he served in the Korean war, and received the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his service.

What he's trying to do right now is alienate suburban soccer moms with 18 year-old sons. Not a bad strategy; it worked in the 1960's.

deanf
December 30, 2002, 11:21 PM
So basically he's threatening us: "You people better knock off all this support for the president and military action or you may just find yourselves or your kin on the wrong end of an Iraqi rifle!"

How nice.

("wrong end of an Iraqi rifle", I guess that would be either end, yes?)

Malone LaVeigh
December 31, 2002, 12:17 AM
It'll never happen. The Repugs are in charge, and they'd much rather have the middle-class voters spectating the war from their video screens. Than having to think Johnny might have to go fight.

9 out of 10 Torys prefer a good professional Hessian army...

SIGarmed
December 31, 2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by deanf
So basically he's threatening us: "You people better knock off all this support for the president and military action or you may just find yourselves or your kin on the wrong end of an Iraqi rifle!"

How nice.

("wrong end of an Iraqi rifle", I guess that would be either end, yes?)

Your exactly correct. What do you expect from a liberal fascist?
He served in Korea, but much like Mcstain in AR he's full of it.

This is from a man who publically stated that Republicans don't say "spick, and ****** anymore they just cut social programs" or something to that effect. NO one calls him on it! His thing is to be devisive. The guy cannot be trusted.

Seeker
December 31, 2002, 02:56 AM
"Mandatory service" is the opposite of Freedom.

Pendragon
December 31, 2002, 03:40 AM
Yes Seeker.

As much as I am pro-military, I am anti conscription.

Conscription is essentially life and death welfare.

If you believe in freedom, you must believe that no man can live at the expense of another - yet, those who drafted our young men into Vietnam sought to do just that - worse actually as we were fighting for another countries "freedom".

I think that if American cannot inspire enough men to join up, then it is time to call it quits. If we force people into the military and force them to fight and die for... freedom (?) then what kind of country are we?

Porter Rockwell
December 31, 2002, 04:13 AM
Well, I'm a vet and sixtyish I'd vote for it!
Honestly, military service would be good for the many ________ children more concerned with self cunsumption...ah well.

Schuey2002
December 31, 2002, 04:31 AM
I forgot. What age is it to be eligible?? Isn't it something like.. 18-34 yrs. of age? :uhoh:

Hkmp5sd
December 31, 2002, 04:57 AM
Not needed and won't happen. Just some guy flapping his lips. Regardless of all the reasons not to do it, there is no way they could afford to send all males 18-26 to boot camp alone.

GhostShooter
December 31, 2002, 05:20 AM
they'd much rather have the middle-class voters spectating the war from their video screens. Than having to think Johnny might have to go fight.

Yep, lets go fight a war...um wait...you go fight a war.:mad:

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

NewShooter78
December 31, 2002, 06:01 AM
Well I hate to say it, but I think a lot of young men and women would be "visiting" Canada if this were to actually come to fruition. Either that or learning Spanish. I also think it would be a smack in the face to all the men and women who are currently serving in the military as well to have this actually be introduced into the senate.

El Tejon
December 31, 2002, 07:42 AM
How about proposing that as Congressperson Rangel desires universal militree training that it begin in junior high school with mandatory firearms training? And let the NRA run this federally funded program.

Leatherneck
December 31, 2002, 09:28 AM
Pendragon's got it right. I saw ole' Charlie last night, and it was as transparent as could be, that he was trying to propose a way to bullet-proof Iraq by infesting the Military with hoardes of Cat IV losers pressed into service.:rolleyes:
TC
TFL Survivor

justinh
December 31, 2002, 10:53 AM
"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress," Rangel said.
So it's OK for the serfs' children to go to war, but the children of congressmen can't? :confused:

gburner
December 31, 2002, 11:03 AM
If Rangel wasn't such a plastic gasbag he might be dangerous. Fact of the matter is that the 'best and the brightest' will in large part get deferrments, be in the rear with the gear or be assigned alternative theater postings while those of Mr. Rangel's constituency, Blacks and Latinos on the lower economic rungs of the ladder will be the ones who are drafted to be at the point of the spear. I'm surprised that Charlie's folks aren't calling for his head.

wingman
December 31, 2002, 11:26 AM
The draft is a good idea, perhaps more now
then ever. If some leave go to Canada no harm we have enough coming across the southern border to take up the slack.

riverdog
December 31, 2002, 12:26 PM
Great, then we can go back to the high quality troops we had in the good ole days :rolleyes: Sorry, but this is about taking us back to the 60's and 70's when drug use among troopers was common. We have taken a significant drop in numbers since then and quality of the troops has rarely been higher (the early '90's was probably the high point). We don't need this.

whoami
December 31, 2002, 12:36 PM
Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Then again, it's not like the Constitution has ever stopped Congressmen before...

Greg L
December 31, 2002, 12:45 PM
I have to agree with most of gburner's post except that the best and brightest of the LEADERS will always volunteer to be out front at the point of the spear. Unfortunately those same traits that would be good to pass along to future generations are the same ones that tend to put you in a position to get blown up. England is a good example of what happens when you take out two consecutive generations of their best. The ones who weaseled easier assignments are now the "leaders" who won't take a stand on anything.

Unfortunately Charlie won't be handed his head over this issue, or if he is the media won't cover it.

Greg

Waitone
December 31, 2002, 03:25 PM
Opps. Charley just warmed up this idea from the 90's when Clinton was committing troops all over the earth for social services.

Silly me. Clinton was a democrat so it wasn't necessary to propose a new draft. Only republlicans deserve the draft treatment.

Charley's political opportunism stinks.

clem
December 31, 2002, 10:12 PM
MonKeyLeg,

And McCain was a prisoner of war for 6 years, and that still does not make him right. But I do respect his military service.

Blackhawk
December 31, 2002, 11:39 PM
The only talking politicians you can believe aren't talking for partisan political reasons are not politicians at all.

Know any...? :rolleyes:

Kaylee
January 1, 2003, 01:56 PM
9 out of 10 Torys prefer a good professional Hessian army...

Whoa... normally Malone, I disagree with you. Color me shocked to come down on the same side of the fence as you. :)


I DO think a lot of folks eager to see a war start aren't the ones with kith and kin lined up to go. War coverage anymore reminds me of the football hysteria (testaria?) around here in TN. There seems this idea that no one's gonna get hurt -- that we can all just sit on our bums and watch the headlines of painless victory come rolling in. Ma, get the chips.

Now, I'm not saying one way or another what I think of THIS action -- but the tendency to drift towards a professional military was a danger our Founders knew well, and feared. And rightly so.

Personally, I'd prefer the old Athenian (or is it "Starship Troopers?") system. Do your time in the service (or equally nasty dirty hard toiling civil service work for CO's), or not, as you will. But don't expect the rights of a citizen (including and especially the right of suffrage) without ponying up the cost.


-K

Raoul Duke
January 1, 2003, 02:53 PM
Well, this topic has definite non draft leanings, eh? Well, I'm just out of the range of the normal draft, but well within the numbers if the SHTF.

I'm all for it for none of the reasons that Rangel is promoting it for.

I think that the fact that we don't have mandatory service is one of the reasons that society is digging it's self a deeper hole to plumb the depths of.

I would expect my children to do their duty to their country.


It isn't free, no matter what we've been led to believe.

Nathaniel Firethorn
January 1, 2003, 03:04 PM
There are some things that I think are truly cowardly and despicable. Putting kids in harm's way to score political points is one of them.

With his service record, and as an elected public servant, Mr. Rangel ought to know better than to play these kinds of games with kids' lives.

- pdmoderator

CyberGOP
January 1, 2003, 03:11 PM
Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that pretty much sums up why the draft unconstitutional ,unfortunately some politicians see the Constitution as something they can ignore when it is expedient , this is just another case . To the people the people who support the draft , how can you support something which is obviosly unconstitutional , or do you only support the rights you like ?

longeyes
January 1, 2003, 03:14 PM
And I keep wondering, from what I see, especially of the Gen-Y crowd, why the military even WANTS to defend us. What do they get out of it and why should they, given the lack of respect the military has and the lack of perquisites, risk their asses for a bunch of convenience-addicted consumers and corrupt pols who day by day are taking this nation down a socialistic road? From what I hear a lot of mil types think American civilians are a pretty soft and squishy lot who'd just as soon party on than pay for freedom. Maybe a few moons down the pike they'll be asking not whether the Emperor has any clothes but whether he ought to be in camo to save the Republic. What I see is an Addict Nation that needs to 12-step its national soul back toward the principles that founded this nation. Others, I'm sure, see the same thing.

As for me I'm just looking for a place, for now, to cultivate my garden and keep my tools clean.

Boudicca
January 1, 2003, 05:00 PM
My son told me that he took his vow of Courage, Honor and Commitment so that I could live my life exactly as I please. This morning I put him on the plane back to North Carolina and from there to God only knows where. He & his fellow Marines embody all that is good about the American ethos. Reinstating the draft may yield more men and women for our armed forces but they will not be finer than the young man I blessed and said goodbye to this morning.

Waitone
January 1, 2003, 07:05 PM
I'm a screwed up product of the 60's. I came up questioning in general and the Vietnam War specifically. I remember well the thrill of waiting for my draft number to be picked. I remember well seeing the conflict some of my friends had when their number came up. Do I report for induction to fight in a war that no one tried to explain or do I go CO? If there was any principal exhibited it was those CO's who bailed and headed to Canada. I didn't support the idea of leaving but at least they were willing to live with the consequences of their actions. That's why to this day I despise Carter and his decision to pardon those who left. To their credit very few took that idiot Carter up on his pardon and return to the US.

Freedom is bloody expensive, but I'll be damned if I'll support the idea of the state, any state, having first claim on the lives of its citizens. If any armed conflict can not be sold as being critical to the continued existence of the American republic then we should not participate. Professional army or draft army. . . .makes no difference. The state is not God.

cookhj
January 1, 2003, 07:22 PM
Boudicca, congrats on your son becoming a Marine. i hope it comforts you that he is with the finest fighting force in the world.


longeyes, many people that are in the military stay in because they recognize that most civilians are nasty, etc. and the military is an escape from that. they are locked inside a bubble of well disciplined individuals just like them, and any departure from that would probably cause their heads to explode.

longeyes
January 1, 2003, 08:15 PM
Waitone,

You're right: the State is not God.

But neither is the self.

Dienekes
January 1, 2003, 09:01 PM
Hell of a good idea--but won't go anywhere politically because most Americans think that citizenship is just a free ride. It was pushed in the late 1940s and didn't fly then.

The Israelis have near-universal conscription for both men and women, and borrowed the basic system from the Swiss. They refer to it as the 'school of the nation' and rightly so.

I wasn't 'lifer' material but I got more out of my hitch than I ever got out of school as a spoiled kid. Frankly I now feel sorry for those who never served.

duncan
January 1, 2003, 10:17 PM
Even if you're quoting someone else, the use of racial slurs and slang is inappropriate.

And last time I checked, Congressman Rangel's main constituency was the upper and middle class, blacks only constiute a part of that group.

And generally, anyone who makes it to the U.S. Congress or Senate are members of the upper class by definition.

While I don't agree with much he says, he still is a U.S. Congressman and should be respected. Blast his ideas nut respect the office. After all, that is the core of our democracy, otherwise, we'd get no legislation passed.

So let's focus on the concept of a draft and steer clear of the "racial" stereotyping.

You just never know who is a conservative Christian right-wing Black republican around here;)

duncan
January 1, 2003, 10:19 PM
And if you are going to quote someone using offensive words, it's a good course of action to actually KNOW exactly what they said.

Preacherman
January 1, 2003, 10:41 PM
Following complaints received from THR members about the use of racially abusive language and other epithets in this thread, it was temporarily removed from the Legal & Political Forum for examination. We're satisfied that the words used are actual quotes, or paraphrases of quotes, from other individuals, and that they were not intended to be racially insulting. This thread is therefore being re-opened in the L&P Forum.

However, we do ask all our members to "take the High Road" in dealing with subjects such as this. Some of our members are more sensitive to racial issues and their discussion than are others. Please take this into account, and try not to use inflammatory or offensive language, even in quoting others, unless absolutely necessary. This will save your moderators a whole lot of heartache and stomach upsets! :)

On with the discussion...

Pendragon
January 2, 2003, 01:52 AM
I think it is important to keep a certain dynamic between the citizenry, the military and the politicians.

If we have compulsory service, there is no incentive for the pols to consider what conflicts they enter. They will always have cannon fodder when they need it.

If we have a voluntary system, then two things are needed:

1. America has to be good enough to inspire good people to serve

2. Pols have to consider what they do with the military lest they discourage the next wave of best and brightest.

I do realize that that is incredibly idealistic, but conscription is wrong on so many levels.

I never really cared that much about Vietnam when I was younger - I just did not get it. Now, the older I get, the angrier I get about it. For very political reasons, many men were forced to fight and die for - for what? Certainly not for a vital American interest.

I think that if the day comes that America no longer has enough people to serve in the military, then America deserves what it gets. My dad tried to enlist, but was denied for medical reasons. Same with me and my brother. To the horror of certain people in our family, my wife and I have already said that we would be incredibly proud to see our son (now 1 year old) be in the service. We intend to raise him to love America and be patriotic and while we would never push him to do anything he does not want to do, we will gently hint :)

Conscription is slavery plain and simple.

striker3
January 2, 2003, 09:30 AM
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. I believe that everyone should have a mandatory period of government service. But I agree with Col Hackworth's idea that the government service should be in the forms of Military and Civil service and the choice up to the individual. This way everyone will be contributing to the welfare of the whole before they focus only on what is due to them, but we can still have a volunteer military.

ArmsAkimber
January 2, 2003, 10:35 AM
I am pressed into government service every time I earn a dollar, thank you very much. The notion that forcing people to work for the government is necessary for freedom or even desireable smacks of a favorite slogan of a particular mustachioed fellow with greasy hair:

"Arbeit macht Frei"

:banghead:

Many people in civil service positions do a bad enough job now, and they are there voluntarily. Image the quality of work if they were slaves.

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 10:57 AM
I just don't like the concept that you don't own your own life -- it's not your place to decide whether to risk life and limb in a particular fight. Instead, the government can make that decision for you.

Seems to go against every argument for freedom I've ever heard.

Note that I've served my time as airborne infantry, but I volunteered, and I think that's the difference.

If you can be forced at gunpoint to surrender your life for someone else's cause, that's not freedom -- that's serfdom.

longeyes
January 2, 2003, 12:59 PM
Let me get this straight: Libertarians believe that the only real function of Government, and presumably, by extension, The People who are finally the Government embodied, is to protect the nation. But what I'm hearing here is that The People don't really have to protect the nation unless they want to. Is that right? Then in what sense are we a nation at all? A collection of self-serving individuals, yes, but not a nation--and, frankly, that's how it appears to be going. And what does this say about the concept of Militia itself? Are we all not, in theory at least, a part of that?

The concept of volunteering presumes that citizens understand where their loyalties should lie and that they feel a connection to some greater whole, some larger social entity. If you don't feel you want to volunteer it must be that you don't think the Government represents you and yours. Then volunteer to change that.

Viking6
January 2, 2003, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the draft but a couple of thoughts for consideration. Service in VA hospitals and other alternative services in lieu of military service as a way to meet the obligation a la Hackworth ain't the same. It's noble, helpful but not the same as hanging it out there for someone to shoot at. Now for the draft to be reinstated, how do you address school deferments, females and gays? Do we just draft heterosexual, non-student males? I don't know the answer; I'm just posing the question.

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 01:34 PM
If you don't feel you want to volunteer it must be that you don't think the Government represents you and yours. Then volunteer to change that. That's one way to look at it. Another would be that if the people view the cause as just then you won't lack for volunteers (WWI, WWII), but if the cause is seen as questionable then there's no way you can run the war with volunteers (think Vietnam).

Americans have a history of "answering the call" when they thought it was appropriate to do so. Forcing them to lose their lives in a fight they don't value strikes me as a way to bolter bad policy with troops.

Put another way: the "will of the people" isn't necessarily the same thing as "how the president decides to use the war powers act."

ArmsAkimber
January 2, 2003, 01:39 PM
Let me get this straight: Libertarians believe that the only real function of Government, and presumably, by extension, The People who are finally the Government embodied, is to protect the nation. But what I'm hearing here is that The People don't really have to protect the nation unless they want to. Is that right?

Exactly. One of the tests of a government's legitimacy is the willingness of the governed to defend it. If a government of and for the people can force its people, at the point of a gun, to enter into involuntary servitude, it is no longer for the people, it a case of people of and for the government.

Then in what sense are we a nation at all? A collection of self-serving individuals, yes, but not a nation--and, frankly, that's how it appears to be going. And what does this say about the concept of Militia itself? Are we all not, in theory at least, a part of that?

It is not the place of the government to whip us "the people" into shape. We have become complacent, ignorant, and lazy. These problems have been exacerbated, if not outright caused, by government. Government schools fail to teach history, or even the three Rs, correctly.

longeyes
January 2, 2003, 02:06 PM
ArmsAkimber,

Don't take what I say as an endorsement of this or any other Administration. What I'm pointing at is the disconnect between lawful government and popular attitudes caused in part by what I described in an earlier post as "addiction." You and I agree about the current state of the people ("complacent, ignorant, and lazy") and that in large part this is due to a paternalistic Government, though I think higher education and Big Media bear a lot of blame too. In a free Republic good citizens of clear mind and strong heart will do the right thing when their nation is imperiled. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a period when the terms Republic, citizen, and nation are becoming increasingly vague in the hearts and minds of all too many.

ArmsAkimber
January 2, 2003, 02:35 PM
longeyes,

We do agree much more than disagree. Whether government can force citizens to serve must not be a function of the peoples' capacity to do the right thing on there own, however.

Gun control is a perfect example of this. Social decay, and lack of respect for human life, has caused governments (state and federal) to pass ever increasingly draconian laws which chip away at our RKBA. Sure, there are those in gov and in NGOs who don't like guns for other reasons [Million mom (fear, stupidity), United Nations (totalitarianism, one world gov), Democrat party (political expediency), etc], and there are individual politicians who rail against guns for various reasons; but I think alot of anti-gun laws are passed for the simple reason that we the people are a bunch of brats with no self-control (present company excepted, of course ;) ). Is this general lowering of the apparent emotional intelligence of society a good reason to take the guns out of our hands, though? I say no.

Redlg155
January 2, 2003, 04:36 PM
I'm in favor of mandatory service so long as it does not exclude anyone except those with severe physical handicaps. That means every swinging joe out there. Want to go to college? Fine. Do your year or so of mandatory service for the country and then go to school.

It would do good for the younger generation to learn some discipline, responsibility and patriotism. It would not only bolster our military forces, but it would also give kids a clean break in life to try to change things. If they choose to go back to their old lifestyle, so be it. They were given a chance.

Good Shooting
RED

Pendragon
January 2, 2003, 05:59 PM
Thats fine. Just don't pretend that you are a free person when you are conscripted. It is slavery, it is morally wrong. It is practical and expedient, but that does not make it right. The people who hang out here should know that better than anyone.

Pragmatism is the mortal enemy of freedom.

So what if we keep it voluntary? What are we afraid of? That we may not have enough people? Now, why would that be?

Would Vietnam have been possible without the draft? Why or why not?

Do you really think, after 9/11, that young men will not rise to the occasion when our freedom needs defending?

If the day comes that they do not, then we will know that the military and the war is unnecessary because America will already be dead.

Some of these crusty old hard asterisks who think we need a draft because they see too many slackers really tick me off.

The very notion of a standing army is anathema to the constitution.

Having a steady stream of military grunts will only give the pols cause to find something to do so the boys with guns can "earn their keep".

Not only is the draft immoral, our government cannot be trusted with the power (in the form of people) that it provides them.

CyberGOP
January 2, 2003, 07:37 PM
I think this debate should be solved by this


Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Longeyes and Redleg155 , if you support mandatory military service then you clearly don't give a damn about the Constitution .

As to both of you guy's assertion that young people are " selfish " or " slackers " , I don't think that it is anything new , kids have always been wild , but eventually they wise up .

Oh , and by the way , neither you or the military have the right to one minute of my life if I don't want to give it .

Dienekes
January 2, 2003, 08:28 PM
When I was drafted at 22 I felt put upon. For all I know I might have been the only college graduate who went to basic, instead of grad school, getting married, being a CO, intentionally flunking my physical, or finding some other dodge. Nonetheless I was certain that I was the center of the universe, and that doing anything personally inconvenient was indeed 'slavery'.

The only lasting regret I have from my military service is that I (and a whole bunch of other people, some of whom got dead) were flim-flammed by our erstwhile leaders. Before the draft call went out that got me, the Administration had already concluded that the Vietnam war was unwinnable. They didn't have the guts to call a spade a spade and cut their (OUR)losses. One of my few remaining ambitions is to urinate on LBJ's grave. I hope to get to it someday.

There aren't many people under 50 with any military experience these days. That has implications for everything from personal character to foreign policy. (Exhibit A: Bill Clinton.) Likewise, there are a lot of people who can't imagine how the inconveniences of 'duty, honor, country' can be borne proudly. As it happens, most of the things that I take pride in as geezerdom approaches were very 'inconvenient' at the time.

In all fairness, the real story doesn't get much of an airing these days from schools or the media.

Fortunately, Hollywood slips up occasionally and puts out something that catches the truth; 'Patriot', 'We Were Soldiers', 'Gettysburg', and 'Band of Brothers' convey it well.

Orlando5
January 2, 2003, 08:50 PM
The word conscription make me physical ill. The SOB wants to turn the most powerful military in the world into a third rate fighting force. God forbid that we put an Amish, Mennonites, or Brethren in combat units. What great morale those units would have :rolleyes:. Even China is thinking about getting rid of its conscription army because it is better to have 100 well trains volunteer soldiers then 10,000 conscription. Drug addicts, cowards, lack of honor, liberals, and low morale are some of the things that I associate with a conscription military.

The USA has a proud history of volunteer military service. Lets keep it that way.

Redlg155
January 2, 2003, 09:59 PM
CyberGOP.....

Using the Amendment that you quoted, I take it that the draft was unconstitutional and should have been put down as such? If so, did you protest by refusing to register for the Selective Service?

Kids eventually wise up?...I beg to differ again. I can show you right now where 2000 plus kids failed to "wise up". I got there everyday for my shift on duty.

Good Shooting
RED

wingman
January 2, 2003, 10:16 PM
Oh , and by the way , neither you or the military have the right to one minute of my life if I don't want to give it ."


There it is and the best reason for the
draft.!!!!:banghead:

longeyes
January 2, 2003, 10:18 PM
Where volunteers for the U.S. military err is not prizing their service, given the mortal risk, highly enough. My own belief is that combat veterans are entitled to all manner of perquisites during and after service, akin to the privileges accorded the warrior class in times past. In a rich but equitable society that might mean free trucks of their choice every three years or unlimited free first-class air service anywhere, anytime. That even career officers earn less than middle-managers at typical corporations suggests, to me, something radically out of joint. Perhaps "Nature" will redress this imbalance at some future date...

longeyes
January 2, 2003, 10:38 PM
"Do you really think, after 9/11, that young men will not rise to the occasion when
our freedom needs defending?

If the day comes that they do not, then we will know that the military and the
war is unnecessary because America will already be dead."

Some, not all, of the Body Politic may well be moribund. But the rest of us may prefer not to die with the gangrenous limb, you know.

CyberGOP,

When did SCOTUS rule the draft unconstitutional? I missed that one. In a perfect world citizens would so prize the privileges of a Constitutional Republic that the idea of needing conscription would be laughable. Somehow we seem to have failed to imbue our citizens with a sense of their responsibilities to defend the ideas that form the predicates by which individual freedoms are made possible in a society like ours. You espouse freedom but the people who will cry out against the draft are more than likely not to be people who want freedom but those who prefer ease and pleasure to risk and hardship. That said, I am certainly not arguing that we give any Government a free pass to promote policies that are not in The People's best interests. Here again, though, we come to the issue of participation in, not alienation from, Government.

Pendragon
January 3, 2003, 12:48 AM
Some, not all, of the Body Politic may well be moribund. But the rest of us may prefer not to die with the gangrenous limb, you know.

So, in other words, the "rest of us" prefer to live free by forcing others to die for their freedom?

Do you really think it is ok to force young men to go be in a war so that other people do not have to die?

Certainly it is pragmatic, but it is indefensible.

And as for your assertion:
You espouse freedom but the people who will cry out against the draft are more than likely not to be people who want freedom but those who prefer ease and pleasure to risk and hardship.

You are trying to discredit the notion of the draft as immoral by discrediting the people you percieve as supporting this idea as immoral or lazy or lacking credibility, etc.

It really does not matter WHO opposes conscription. Please try to justify forcing others to die so that you can maintain your lifestyle.

I will say it again - if America cannot produce enough good people to defend her voluntarily, then America is already over. The concept of freedom and liberty are higher than even this great nation that was founded on those ideas. You are essentially saying that it is more important that America continue to exist than it is to promote freedom and liberty.

I disagree.


ps. I am as pro-military as a civilian can be, and I am passionately against the draft - I think it is bad for everyone involved.

Jim Diver
January 3, 2003, 01:06 AM
Hell, let's just throw out the 3rd while we are at it and start moving soldiers off the base and into any house they like.


It's just about the only ammendment that has not been ignored, AFAIK.....

CyberGOP
January 3, 2003, 01:10 AM
Redlg155 , I did register with the draft , I am not going to risk felony conviction , that still doesn't mean the draft is right or constitutional , in Michigan , one also has to has to register ones handguns , which violates my second ammendment rights , but when I buy a pistol I will comply , because I don't want to go to jail , I have fought against this system by working for pro-gun candidates . Yes Redleg, the draft is indeed unconstitutional , according to the 18th ammendment to the constitution .

Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That alone should end the debate on the draft .

Longeyes , I don't need a supreme court case to tell me the draft in unconstitutional , I can read . Just because the constitution wasn't enforced in the past doesn't mean it is acceptable to ignore it now .

Oh , and Redleg , juvenile delinquency is nothing new , the vast majority of youths respect the rights of others , and those who do not respect the rights of others should be dealt with .

Wingman , how is the assertion that I , being an adult citizen of the United States , have the right to live my life as I please a reason why we need the draft ?

igor
January 3, 2003, 08:12 AM
I did my mandatory service some 12 years ago. I'll be constantly repositioned in reserve until I turn 60. The grueling 1-year training, the sporadically upcoming 1-week repetition stints and the resulting understanding of the reality of modern warfare certainly work well - in creating a strong will for maintaining peace in a nation's thinking. Si vis pacem, parat bellum; it's bad enough in training, for G0d's sake I don't want to do this for real nor do I wish that anyone had to, ever. But if we have to, we darn well know how and why.

Conscription is the way to this mind set. Where I live some 85% of the male population still go; most of the rest do civil service, only a few are exempted because of religion. There is a sort of a "heinleinian" social or peer pressure to do one's part, at least not to be considered a parasite. A professional military would be no option here, even from a purely strategic standpoint.

I consider the professional military like the US has a manifestation of a truly segregated class society. What someone wrote about the middle class voter enjoying real war on TV, happily detached from the reality on-camera, certainly is the case. "Just let the not-so-well-off Hispanics and Blacks that had less options in life do the dirty work". If Johnny across the street had to go defend the puppet president's oil industry stake holders' interests with _his_ life, the mentality would be different and hence the priorities of the "elected" government accordingly.

My .02€ ;)

wingman
January 3, 2003, 10:04 AM
consider the professional military like the US has a manifestation of a truly segregated class society. What someone wrote about the middle class voter enjoying real war on TV, happily detached from the reality on-camera, certainly is the case.”



Right,! we as a society are failing, in the past 35-40 years our public schools alongwith poor parenting has taught our youth to have high self esteem, large ego’s andlittle else in the way of common sense, patience or willing to work hard.

We moved from a rural to urban society that is fat and lazy, i do not include all youth in this but too many, most would crumble and cry with a (ti) or (di) yelling in there face.

Most want someone to do there fighting for them, clean there homes, pick there food, anyone but me because i am a free man, no one can tell me what to do.

I believe it was Nikita Kruschev who said “give it time and america will destroy it’s self.

wingman
January 3, 2003, 10:05 AM
consider the professional military like the US has a manifestation of a truly segregated class society. What someone wrote about the middle class voter enjoying real war on TV, happily detached from the reality on-camera, certainly is the case.”



Right,! we as a society are failing, in the past 35-40 years our public schools alongwith poor parenting has taught our youth to have high self esteem, large ego’s and little else in the way of common sense, patience or willing to work hard.

We moved from a rural to urban society that is fat and lazy, i do not include all youth in this but too many, most would crumble and cry with a (ti) or (di) yelling in there face.

Most want someone to do there fighting for them, clean there homes, pick there food, anyone but me because i am a free man, no one can tell me what to do.

I believe it was Nikita Kruschev who said “give it time and america will destroy it’s self.

Russ
January 3, 2003, 10:21 AM
Rangel is almost, note "almost" as stupid as he looks. Even then I guess this is a debateable.

whoami
January 3, 2003, 02:22 PM
And what, since the children are hiding behind the shield of their freedoms, the solution to the problem is simply to.....deprive them of said freedom?

:fire:

This is the FORCED CONSCRIPTION of EACH AND EVERY MALE CITIZEN from 18-26. There exists no choice, no possibility to defer service. It is sadly ironic that many seem to believe that in order to instill a respect for the founding principles of this nation we must tear those very principles apart.

It would to the mind of myself and many others forever tarnish the perception of military service. Oh...forgive me....military SLAVERY. For if they are given no choice, then it is nothing less than that...there is no inherint difference than if they were chained to an oar and forced to row. 'We keep you alive to serve this army. Shoot well, and live'. There is no honor in being forced to serve, whether their be a purpose or not. There is even less honor in being complicit to such a denial of rights. And it disgusts me that there are people in the military, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, who would support this.

I am a man who tries to judge everyone by who they are, and the actions they take.....therefore I am utterly disgusted at this presentation of the 'sins of the fathers'. For the price of the fathers warmongering, the sons must loose their freedom and their lives? And what lesson do you wish to teach them? If someone isn't acting how you'd like, just violate them until they do? Do you think many of those...what was it...'want someone to do there fighting for them, clean there homes, pick there food, anyone but me because i am a free man, no one can tell me what to do' children are going to THANK you for ripping away their freedom?

Most want someone to do there fighting for them, clean there homes, pick there food, anyone but me because i am a free man, no one can tell me what to do.

Yes, I am a free man. And I respect those who have answered the calling of this nations Armed Forces. But if any man shows up at my house, and tells me that I or my children must choose only between serving in the military, or serving in prison....I will treat that person exactly as I would treat the one coming to eradicate my right to keep and bear arms.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."
Alexander Hamilton

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Patrick Henry

Flying V
January 3, 2003, 02:40 PM
The armed forces of the United States should not be a conscript Volkssturm.

para.2
January 3, 2003, 02:43 PM
I have served my entire adult life in the armed forces of this country. I have killed people I probably had more in common with than the people in my own country who would not serve. Even so, I, and the young men I served with saw it as an honor, and a sacred duty, to go where others would not , to do what others were unwilling to do.
There are sheep, and there are sheepdogs. I do not resent the sheep, and would not like to see them forced to do the job of a sheepdog.
" And that's all I've got to say about that."

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 03:00 PM
Instituting the draft would be idiotic in the extreme.

It would be an unjustified tyrannical measure.

It would lower the quality of the armed forces by introducing more unmotivated slugs into the system, and reducing the time in service to the point where soldiers would leave by the time they know their jobs.

It would not be egalitarian, since the elites would always have a way out so their kids wouldn't have to die.

It would breed resentment of the armed forces in the general population.

It would degrade military service into an oppression forced upon you instead of a calling. Ex post facto nostalgia wouldn't compensate for the discontent it would create and maintain among those "under the gun."

It would NOT prevent the president getting Americans killed for no good reason. It would curb neither public bloodlust nor policy stupidity. See the last 200 years of American history for details.

In short, it is a terrible idea, and since the end of World War II was an abject failure on all fronts.

El Jefe
January 3, 2003, 03:56 PM
After reading some of these replies I am having difficulty believing what I am seeing... I think a Mandatory two year hitch would do a world of good, I just retired from 23 years of Active duty service. It is not going to Cramp anyones style, but it will give all Americans a more educated view on just what exactly our military does and what they go through. Right now ships are deploying undermanned as are all the other services. More manpower means alot ESPECIALLY now! This attitude of I am all for a strong military , AS LONG AS IT IS SOMEONE else's kid sucks. I think the Nation as a whole would have a greater appreciation for the services as a whole, not to mention firearms. (because they are getting firearms training helping to remove the stigma) If you knew what some of these military families go through you would realize that more manpower would decrease deployments and enhance the service members lives. Look at Israel Men and women both MUST serve. I am for it, Great idea if you ask me!;)

Pendragon
January 3, 2003, 06:03 PM
El Jefe,

I am sincerely grateful for your years of service. So do not take this personally.

The way I see it, the military should have no say in it. The same way that law enforcement should have no say in the gun control debate.

I think a Mandatory two year hitch would do a world of good,

Would do WHO a world of good? The people pressed into service? You know what else would do those people a world of good? Mandatory exercise every morning at 6:00am. Government monitoring of parenting styles. A GPS in every car that writes automatic traffic tickets every time we break a traffic law.

There are a lot of things we can force people to do that would have some "good" associated with them. However, freedom is the highest end and the greatest good, and we cannot defend the freedom of some by taking it from others.


I just retired from 23 years of Active duty service.
It is not going to Cramp anyones style

Forgive me, but when did you become the decider of what will "cramp anyones style"?

So you think that young men who may have a girlfriend, possibly a wife and child, ties to the community, and education in process, possibly a job or business - that forcing them to join the military will "do a world of good" and "not cramp their style"?

Just on the basis of the fact that many fathers would not be able to see their kids much during some or most of the servitude is enough to make me passionately against it.

, but it will give all Americans a more educated view on just what exactly our military does and what they go through.

Again sir, I respect your service and I believe that all citizens ought to - but those who are not inclined to value it are not going to come around just becuase you make them.

Let me ask you this - what if they government wanted to force you to work as a daycare worker or teacher for a couple years? Or. what if they wanted to force you into the clergy or to work as a medic for a while. Does not matter what the task is, they do not have the right to force you to work for them.

Right now, we need teachers. There is a shortage of teachers and many kids are doing poorly in school. This situation could affect the entire future of our nation for generations.

For this reason, I propose the National Teacher Act. All people will be expected to register with the Department of Education on their 18th Birthday and birthdates and years will be drawn as necessary. When your birthday is drawn, you will be expected to report for your 2 years of service at the school where you are needed.

There will be no deferrals, and it does not matter what your intelligence or educational level is.

THE CHILDREN NEED YOU!




:neener:

Zak Smith
January 3, 2003, 06:52 PM
Here's an idea: If the country needs more young people to join the military, "we" can offer to pay them a higher salary, just like any other job. Supply and demand will solve the problem. That way you will (probably) eventually attract that young father or kid in college, once it's worth his while, and you won't push anyone into slavery in the process. The rest of society will be paying "market price" for their service, and getting national protection in return.

-z

wingman
January 3, 2003, 09:18 PM
Forgive me, but when did you become the decider of what will "cramp anyones style"? "


Oh yes the sound of youth, who are you
to tell me anything.:rolleyes:

In truth we have less freedom now then
when the draft was active. In ww2 men
killed themselves when told they were
4f, sad but we "have" lost a nation of
men and become what.:cuss:

El Jefe
January 3, 2003, 09:30 PM
To do your part for God and country should be the goal of every young man or woman. I have seen first hand and lived in the shoes of the men and women serving this country. I can tell you first hand that our military was cut to the bone 1 person now does the job of 4, long hours extra duty, many months away from Family, friends and loved ones including wives and children. I have watched many grow from barely worth anything to hard chargers, leaders with werewithawl, and why? because of the environment, that was part of my job, to make these young men and women who come from ALL walks of life, Rich or poor Midwestern or Urban street into the leaders of tomorrow. They are taught words like Honor, Courage and Committment and what it means to live up to that code. Todays youth could use a lesson in Honor, courage and commitment, Most have an I am owed mentality and know little of these things. They expect things and when they do not get it they get pedantic and petulant. I have seen, led and guided individuals who were forced into service, by a court, by their parents or by their circumstances and I have seen them turn into fine individuals that I would go to war with if necessary. I reiterate it would not hurt the youth of today to do mandatory military service. I know what it is to leave a loved one behind, At Christmas, over birthdays, anniversaries etc so do not think me insensitive to those issues. Everyone of those men and women have "Ties to the Community" that are just as important, just as valuable as those who won't serve their country and I dare say their service makes them love and cherish those ties even more. If my government needed me to do service as a teacher and pressed me into it It would only be yet one more answer to a call from God and Country, one I have answered time and again in peacetime and in war. I beg to differ sir it would do them a WORLD of good AND it would relieve the pressure on our Sons and Daughters who are doing this nations bidding while we sleep securely under the blanket of freedom that they so tirelessly provide.
While I agree that are young men and women deserve a huge payraise for the job they do is an excellent idea, our Senate and House are filled with Senators and Congressmen who have little Military background, so they do not know what the military goes through, how much they really give so are not inclined to give the kind of raises that they deserve. There are already a ton of incentives out there it is not drawing the necessary personnel. Money alone will not do the trick. GOD forbid we have to fight a war on two fronts against a real enemy with teeth and a willingness to Fight....... especially if it gets brought to American Soil, again! You will quickly see what years of downsizing has done to our military and may have to rethink your position I would wager......... Take it Personal ?? Damned right I take it personal, been there and done that and have a chest full of medals to prove it......... take it from me it won't hurt them one bit and we will all be better off for it. It will be like getting thier drivers license, just something they have to do in the course of life

Zak Smith
January 3, 2003, 10:26 PM
Does El Jefe - or the United States - own me? Hell no. To say otherwise is slavery.

But you can be sure that if the USA needs warriors for a just war, we will come. There was no shortage in WWII.

-z

suvdrvr
January 3, 2003, 10:32 PM
______________________________________________--
While I don't agree with much he says, he still is a U.S. Congressman and should be respected. Blast his ideas nut respect the office. After all, that is the core of our democracy, otherwise, we'd get no legislation passed.
_______________________________________________-

Wouldn't that be a blessing if no legislation were to be passed.
Was a time that legislators had real jobs and being a congressman was an extra duty that men did as a way to serve their country, not unlike the military. Why don't we draft congress people?

Monkeyleg
January 3, 2003, 10:51 PM
IIRC correctly, the original topic was Rangel's call for reinstitution of the draft.

Arguments about the merits of mandatory/obligatory service aside, take a look at why Charlie Rangel wants this to be an issue.

The Honorable Charles Rangel wants to continue to churn the "race pot" as long as possible. Trent Lott gave him the opening, and Rangel and other Dem's are going to harp on this for two years. Minority turnout in the next election is the Dem's hole card.

Will the issue resonate with soccer moms who don't want to see their sons go to war? Oh yeah. Rangel is counting on that. He's also counting on the fact that he can portray voluntary military service as the only legitimate outlet for minorities to escape the ghettos.

If and when there's an Iraqi war, Rangel will continue to harp about the disproportionate number of minorities in the service. Come the 2004 elections, he's counting on a big minority turnout, using the same race-dividing tactics we saw in the late 60's.

That's what this is about.

waterdog
January 4, 2003, 12:04 AM
Everyone should go through basic military training. (Would create firearm enthusiasts).

It would cut down on mobilization time in the event of a REAL war, not the BS Bush wants with Iraq

Then the person could choose between reserve duty military or civil service.

waterdog

ArmsAkimber
January 4, 2003, 07:49 AM
waterdog,

When you say "everyone should go through basic military training," do you really mean everyone should be forced to go through military training? What if they refuse? Prison? Public whipping? Bullet to the head?

Then the person could choose between reserve duty military or civil service.

There's always another choice, it's a question of whether the choice is to live your own life as you see fit, or the "choice" of prison, whipping, or a bullet to the head.

Call it what it is: conscription is slavery. I have the greatest respect for those who volunteer for military service. I have no respect for a government that would force anyone into such service.

Russian peasants were given the choice of running toward the Germans and being mowed down, or running away and being mowed down by their "own" government. To hell with that. If I were put in that position, I'd run toward my own government, I'd just try to get into spitting range before dieing.

Sean Smith
January 4, 2003, 09:39 AM
Funny, my time in the military and study of history convinced me that going to the "peacetime" draft would be insane. The last thing we need to do is degrade the human quality of the armed forces by going with conscripts instead of volunteers.

I find the bashing of the volunteer armed forces kind of interesting. The leftist media find a couple of whiney slugs out of untold hundreds of thousands of people in the armed forces, and you (rah-rah-U.S.A. types?) are duped into thinking everyone is a cartoon Gen-X slacker volunteering for an easy ride to college money. Are y'all really that dumb?

:rolleyes:

They volunteered. Everyone else sat on their ass. Nothing else need be said.

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html

CyberGOP
January 4, 2003, 02:40 PM
El Jefe , and all the other draft supporters , what your argument boils down to is the end justifies the means . This is the creed of the majority of tyrannical regimes in history . You expect people to give up their rights for the " common good " , just like the german nazis or the soviet communist . According to you the state is god , if that is what you believe fine , I however believe that the role of the state is that of a servant , not a deity .

El Jefe
January 4, 2003, 11:29 PM
I gave up 23 years of my life Missing birthdays, Christmas's easter The BIRTH OF MY FIRST BORN All so that I could do my Part for GOD Almighty Lord in heaven AND My Country (Cyber where do you get off anyway?) How many years did you do in the service? First all I said was that it wouldn't hurt to teach these kids morals and ethics such as we teach them daily in the service And I have seen 100's if not thousands, been in charge of whole divisions of young men and women and yes they have a whats in it for me attitude. I know this first hand been there and done that. But with time and training they become part of a team, part of the finest fighting force in the world. The freedom you enjoy would not be yours to trifle about if it were not for the men and women in the US Armed forces Conscripted and volunteer alike, Many men died so you can have the freedom you now enjoy and did very little to earn save be born by American Parents. Bottom line is that you are afraid that it may have to be you or someone you know and your not sure you would have what it takes to measure up when the time came , IF that is the case then I fell sorry for you but you can rest safely at night because their are others that are willing to shed thier blood to ensure your blanket of freedom stays intact. I don't like Rangle or His motives for doing what he is doing but a 2 year hitch would do the majority of young men a lot of good and that is my bottom line!

Derek Zeanah
January 4, 2003, 11:37 PM
Bottom line is that you are afraid that it may have to be you or someone you know and your not sure you would have what it takes to measure up when the time came , IF that is the case then I fell sorry for you but you can rest safely at night because their are others that are willing to shed thier blood to ensure your blanket of freedom stays intact. I don't like Rangle or His motives for doing what he is doing but a 2 year hitch would do the majority of young men a lot of good and that is my bottom line!Looks like you might be reading too much in to the comments here.

I did 2 years as airborne infantry (11C1P) 1991-1994 -- had 2 shots at OCS and another at green-to-gold but turned them down as I wasn't big on the way things were changing under Clinton's command. Volunteered for Bosnia during our 6-month train-up, but we didn't move until after I ETS'd.

Some of us that oppose the draft do so on moral grounds, rather than "oh my gosh I might have to fight!!!" grounds. Some of us truly feel it's wrong to point a gun at another, dress him up like a soldier, and drop him on his ass in a combat zone. The slave versus citizen sounds like a lot of rhetoric but there's a valid point there: do you own yourself, or does your government? If it's the latter, than all that stuff we've been believing as a country for the last few hundred years doesn't matter any more.

Seeker
January 4, 2003, 11:48 PM
I gave up 23 years of my life Missing birthdays, Christmas's easter The BIRTH OF MY FIRST BORN All so that I could do my Part for GOD Almighty Lord in heaven AND My Country (Cyber where do you get off anyway?)

It was your choice to do this. If it wasn't your choice then you shouldn't have had to do it. The point here is that it was a Choice! Conscription is not choice.

In a free country people are Free to choose how they want to live.

jmbg29
January 5, 2003, 12:24 AM
I'll second Sean Smith's post and add:

9 out of 10 Torys prefer a good professional Hessian army...I love the suggestion that those of us that chose to serve our country voluntarily are considered to be foreign mercenaries by those of you who would obviously never serve our country no matter what the circumstance. Declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Trust me, the lack of your presence was celebrated rather than missed.

Getting rid of the draft is one of the best things that ever happened to our military for just that reason.

El Jefe
January 5, 2003, 01:03 AM
I guess it is obvious that I take my time in service to this great country personally. I also have my opinions on what mandatory service would do and you have yours. In this instance we will have to agree to disagree before this whole topic degrades into something that I don't allow on our board so I won't do it on this one. Some of the finest people I met on the net were on TFL and have since moved here. So we will just leave it at that We agree to Disagree.

Pendragon
January 5, 2003, 04:29 AM
Bottom line is that you are afraid that it may have to be you or someone you know and your not sure you would have what it takes to measure up when the time came , IF that is the case then I fell sorry for you but you can rest safely at night because their are others that are willing to shed thier blood to ensure your blanket of freedom stays intact.

Your contrition in your next post notwithstanding El Jefe, this is very offensive to me and I presume most patriotic Americans.

Certainly the Armed Forces are full of brave men who are willing to die for their country. But surely you can see that a person can be opposed to the draft and yet also be pro military and willing to serve and even die for their country?

I think young people should give the military serious consideration, but I do not think they should be forced into it and more importantly, I think it is tyrannical and immoral to force people to serve.

I think church and marriage and parenthood and higher education are all great for people too - but forcing someone to do something is one of the best ways to make them hate it and resent it and do a poor job at it.

El Jefe
January 5, 2003, 08:58 AM
Well Pendragon that was not the intent , If I have offended then I will apologize to you and other patriotic Americans. That said you would be surprised at how many people I have run into with the "Not in my backyard" syndrome They want more prisons and stiffer penalties but don't you dare build one close to my house, They want want all that America has to offer yet they oppose their Children wanting to join. They are all to quick to want us to run over and kick someone's butt , but not if it means sending one of their own. So forgive my impertinence if I offended it came from first hand experience..........:)

Griff
January 5, 2003, 09:25 AM
If that politician's aim was to divide and conquer, much less misdirect, he's well on his way. People will always feel justified in their own views, especially one with so much emotional baggage as this, and both sides are fully entitled to their choices. For now.
What happens when the professional soldiers get used up? Will robots fight for us? Would you debate with the executive orders crowd, or do your duty to protect our country's freedoms? Are you a citizen by birthright, or do you earn it? Are civilians selfish whiners, or are military-types mindless fodder?
Compromise time: If you can't/won't do armed service, do hard-core community service. Either way, you're helping build/preserve something bigger than yourself, regardless of your motivation.

Joe Demko
January 5, 2003, 11:30 AM
Let me see if I have it all down now:

1. Freedom isn't free. It has to be paid for with slavery.

2. Kids today are weak, cowardly slackers, so the Nanny State (tm) must conscript them and whip them into shape.

3. I enjoyed my time in the service, so everybody should be forced into the military so they could enjoy it to.

4. I didn't enjoy my time in the service, so everybody should be forced into the military so I can feel revenged on them for enjoying their civilian lives.

5. A volunteer (mercenary) army is bad. A conscript (slave) army is good.

6. Blah blah blah Heinlein blah blah blah.

Yep, them's some mighty convincing arguments.

ps I already did my time in green, as a volunteer, many years ago. Save yourselves the exertion of climbing all the wayup on that high horse to lecture me about what I "owe." Wrap it up in the flag, with mom, hot dogs, apple pie, and chevrolet, have Norman Rockwell paint it, and conscription will still be slavery.

longeyes
January 5, 2003, 12:43 PM
I hope you guys who believe in "hell no, we won't go!" feel the same way about taxation. Now that might really change some things.

CyberGOP
January 5, 2003, 05:15 PM
El Jefe , I didn't mean you or the military any disrespect by my arguments , I appreciate your service and believe that the troops deserve more respect . However , I stand by my argument that the draft is unconstitutional , just check the 18th Ammendment .

Longeyes , involuntary servitude is prohibited by the constitution , taxation is not , although I do believe we are getting our pockets picked .

JPM70535
January 5, 2003, 09:01 PM
The way I interpret Rangels proposal is that he wants Compulsary military service to insure that the Soldiers who go to war and fight and die for this country to reflect a cross section of the population. In his mind it is the lower socio-economic youngsters who enlist most often and do the brunt of the fighting and make the ultimate sacrifice. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue.

This country did away with the mandatory draft long ago and the quality of the Armed forces has not suffered. Some of the best and brightest of our college graduates enter Military service and a percentage decide to remain in service thus insuring a well educated core of leaders from other than the lower strata of society. These leaders fight and die with the same dedication to duty as any other soldier.

I personally see no need for any mandatory conscription, but if it were instituted, most of the draft age youngsters would do as they always have, answer the call when asked by their country. A term of military service would do a world of good for some young men.

El Jefe
January 5, 2003, 09:05 PM
No offense taken........ I have a pretty thick skin

And Rangle doesn't have a Clue These kids come from all walks of life mostly Middle income families and Lower income families but we get a good cross section;)

longeyes
January 5, 2003, 09:07 PM
If taxation doesn't qualify as involunary servitude, it will do fine while we're waiting for the real thing.

pax
January 5, 2003, 09:46 PM
Conscription is slavery, and the end does not justify the means.

On a pragmatic level:
Rangel, who voted against a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in October, believes mandatory enlistment for men ages 18-26 would serve as a deterrent to war.
I think it's the opposite. If we have a huge army sitting around on their butts, someone in gov't is going to go looking for something for them to do. They'll probably end up getting sent overseas to fight in a wildly unpopular war (errrrrr, "police action") in some third-world hellhole, and come home to have ordinary civilians thank them by hurling spitwads and human feces at them as they step off the plane.

On the other hand, if the army is composed only of people who volunteer to fight, the only way America can get involved in a war is if enough people believe in it to volunteer to lay their own necks on the line.

A conscript army is an invitation to war. A volunteer army is an incentive for peace.

pax

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. – Dresden James

Shootin' Buddy
January 5, 2003, 10:17 PM
El Jefe wrote: So we will just leave it at that We agree to Disagree

That is a very agreeable-sounding sentiment, but not usually possible. Agreeing to disagree can really only occur when both parties are allowed to practice their personal beliefs.

If you forbid one party from practicing his personal belief, then you are not agreeing to disagree. You are simply enforcing your position without argument -- which is not the same thing at all.

In this particular situation, forcing young men and women into military service when they do not want to volunteer is not allowing them to practice their personal belief.

You cannot, therefore, agree to disagree without retracting your own position, which compels those who disagree with you to do it your way anyway.

Zak Smith
January 5, 2003, 10:29 PM
Shootin' Buddy,

Excellent post! And your first, to boot. Welcome.

"Agreeing to disagree" works great for people who have philosophies that do not involve the initiation of force. It doesn't work so well when one party wants to force others to comply to his view.

-z

PATH
January 6, 2003, 12:54 AM
If we need the bodies the draft will be put in place as quickly as you please. I think at present a well trained, highly motivated military is better than an unwieldy group of folks who want to be doing something else.

Unless a war gets out of hand or becomes global I think a draft coming back is an unlikely prospect. The military requires a high school diploma and that eliminates people. The military does not take felons or drug abusers and that eliminates more people.

I think you'll find tha a lot of urban poor or rural poor do not have the requisite skills to enter military service. That was not always the case. Hell, at one time you often had a choice between jail and the Army. You won't see that happening.

I believe we have a treaty with Canada that now will return you to American authorities. I don't know about Mexico.

In the end I think a draft is only neccessary when the numbers required for service exceeds the supply.

duncan
January 6, 2003, 02:15 AM
Let's get some facts straight here.

Minorities are not banking on the "military" to get them out of the ghetto.

College or the NBA yes.

I've been a civilian instructor at many U.S. military bases such as Bangor submarine base, Fort Lewis, and McChord Air Force base just to name a few in WA not including a dozen in CA and in Ohio, and the vast majority of U.S. serviceman are not black men but men hailing from many improverished areas in the South, Midwest and the Plain States. Some blacks, latino's, asians and the like in the enlisted ranks. But lots of white men and women fro Kentucky.

Maybe 10 percent of the enlisted and officers' ranks are minorities.

That's what my own eyes tell me over the years.

So let's focus on the Rangel's idea on the draft.

Didn't anyone see some of his discussions with Hannity and Coumbs on FoxNews. They appear to like his idea because that is what he is proposing to consider. A diplomatic or international option before military option.

But it is troubling to get the garbage report they sent us missing several key weapons. I do agree that the UN inspectors need more authoriy and they should use trained UN troops to assist in the inspections so the Iraq's are not just moving weapons behind closed doors when the inspectors come or go.

Ever seen "Thirteen Days"?

If you enjoyed reading about "Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!