Reinstitute the Draft?


PDA






Robert J McElwain
February 10, 2006, 03:05 PM
Today, while driving around, I was listening to some recorded speeches by Ronald Reagan before he became President. Some of the things he was talking about made me think that this country will continue to spiral downward as a world power, both economically and militarily, unless we reinstitute the draft.

Possibly a draft in a slightly different form. As I envision it, all young adults, male and female, would have to sign up for the draft, as before, but there would be an option for non-military service, say in something like the Peace Corps.

But the further away we get from some kind of service to the nation, the less "ownership" our citizens will have in this country.

Thoughts?

Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "Reinstitute the Draft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Leatherneck
February 10, 2006, 03:08 PM
I agree that all should contribute to the country's well-being. But to force anyone to do so kind of kills the meaningfulness of it, don't you think?

TC

Derek Zeanah
February 10, 2006, 03:08 PM
Bad idea. I volunteered and did my time as infantry, but government has no right to require service in the way you describe.

dolanp
February 10, 2006, 03:09 PM
Seems to me things weren't all peachy the last time they used the draft.

fletcher
February 10, 2006, 03:10 PM
I believe that basic marksmanship and firearm-related skills should be taught in high school. "The more you know" kinda thing.

IMO, any law-abiding citizen that holds down an honest job is serving his / her nation.

HankB
February 10, 2006, 03:11 PM
The problem is, today, rather than service to the nation such as fighting Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, a draftee, military or "Peace Corps" type, is much more likely to be doing service to some politician's own agenda in some stinking pestilential turd word dungheap, a dangerous US neighborhood, or on some pork-barrel project.

I wouldn't trust the politicians of either party with unlimited manpower at their beck and call - look what they're doing with their (virtually) unlimited spending power.

torpid
February 10, 2006, 03:15 PM
Why do Bob's posts have large type?

:confused:

Car Knocker
February 10, 2006, 03:18 PM
Why do Bob's posts have large type?

:confused:

Because he selected a large font??

Bartholomew Roberts
February 10, 2006, 03:26 PM
If you have to force people to serve society then do you have a society worth saving?

Seven High
February 10, 2006, 03:29 PM
Young people are not now taught respect for the flag and country. Most are not taught to shoot firearms. I believe that a mandatory draft would accomplish both.

geekWithA.45
February 10, 2006, 03:29 PM
Militia service/duty proceeds from a fundamentally different basis than service in the standing military, which takes nothing away from the honorableness of that.

Furthermore, the "all or nothing" conscientious objection method isn't right.

One may legitimately object to a specific war on the basis of conscience, without necessarilly objecting to all war under all circumstances.

---------------------------

What the original poster was seeking a way to promote a persons investment and ownership in their nation, and this is an important and valid point.

I'm of 2 minds on this.

Mind #1 suggests there is some truth in the idea that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Mind #2 observes that there are ways to show the horse how drinking is in his own self interest.

Humans are critters of self interest, and associating the relationship between the privileges and duties of citizenship is largely a matter of education.

THIS is what has gone south of late, and instituting a draft isn't really the right way to address the root issue.

KriegHund
February 10, 2006, 03:32 PM
Horrible idea. Before i continue, let me state that i will be going into some form of service (thinking army) when i turn 18. To continue-

No better way to make people unhappy than to force them to do something they dont want to.
I think a draft, except in the most extreme occasions, is against the ideals of liberty.

Furthermore, morale is usually very poor, thus reducing the forces effective fighting. We had a draft in vietnam (also in the world wars, but in world war 2 alot of people wanted to fight) and there are horror stories of platoons refusing to fight, etc etc.

The romans had the right idea with a volunteer army.

Malice
February 10, 2006, 03:33 PM
All public high schools that I know of require "Physical Education" classes. Also known as "gym." The thing is, this physical education is nothing more than a coach throwing basketballs out of the closet into the gym and telling everyone to play nice. I did this for a year. I am one year out of high school, BTW.

Would not that time be better served as a drawn-out, less intense Basic Training type of program that included firearms safety and marksmanship?

spartacus2002
February 10, 2006, 03:34 PM
why, oh why, do so many of the inhabitants of the land of the free insist that the government has a right and duty to enslave its citizens for a few year to serve der staat?

This topic comes up over and over and over and over again with the same arguments on both sides.

I did over a decade in uniform, and I came to this conclusion:

I serve my country when I pay my taxes.
I serve my country when I obey traffic laws.
I serve my country when I do not engage in crime.
I serve my country when I help a lady put into her car the heavy stuff she just bought at the store.
I serve my country when I teach other folks how to properly shoot rifles.
I serve my country when I raise my children to respect other folks and the law.

I do NOT need to be enslaved for two years by the gummint to serve my country.

If you think Iraq and domestic spying have split the country into two camps, the current dialogue would PALE in comparison to a draft. THAT would split the country like we haven't seen for almost 40 years.

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 03:35 PM
If you have to force people to serve society then do you have a society worth saving?

The answer to that is, yes. If we say no, we are left with an argument that can lead to finding a society that produces terrorists and suicide bombers is better than one that doesn't.

And we do, as a nation, have a right to call on our people for the defense of the nation (anyone who pays income tax, is after all being required to work at least part time for the government.)

The question should be, "Do we need a draft? Can we efficiently use the manpower so generated?"

And the answer to that is clearly, "No." For the draft to be fair, we'd have to draft everyone -- and we have about three million young people turning military age each year (excluding those not fit to serve.) To effectively use them, we need two years service -- that's an Army of six million privates.

But to be fair, we also need to draft those who are somewhat older -- there's pool of 51 million people between 18 and 35, and they should serve their time, too. That kicks our Army up to somewhere between 12 and 15 million men and women.

Anyone want to figure out what it will cost to feed, clothe, house, care for, train and equip an Army of 12 to 15 million men and women?

MS .45
February 10, 2006, 03:36 PM
I certainly would not trust current polititions with the power to draft soldiers. If the nation was is true need of soldiers, I think that more than enough would sign up voluntarily(i.e. eminant, obvious threat to our nation). It is, however, a tough sell to a lot of people under current conditions.

GEM
February 10, 2006, 03:43 PM
I pose you an interesting problem set:

1. Will the draft cover both men and women? Some will oppose women. Women will sue to get in and some men will sue to get out if women are exempted.

2. What about gays? If gays who announce their status are exempt, then quite a few nongays may say they are gay to avoid service. The stigma isn't that great today. After the war or they pass they age limit, they can go to a therapist or preacher and get converted. Gays will sue to get in and nongays may sue to get out if gays are exempt.

These issues will certainly short circuit the minds of conservatives and may exempt them from the draft. :D

Hawkmoon
February 10, 2006, 03:45 PM
No better way to make people unhappy than to force them to do something they dont want to.
I think a draft, except in the most extreme occasions, is against the ideals of liberty.

Furthermore, morale is usually very poor, thus reducing the forces effective fighting. We had a draft in vietnam (also in the world wars, but in world war 2 alot of people wanted to fight) and there are horror stories of platoons refusing to fight, etc etc.
I respectfully suggest that you are regurgitating something you have heard but have no first-hand knowledge of.

I served in Vietnam. It happens that I enlisted, but most of the men with whom I served were drafted. Whether they were RA (Regular Army = enlisted) or US (draftees) made no difference with regard to either their competence or their morale. Many (a GREAT many) draftees were excellent soldiers, and there were enlistees who weren't worth the powder to blow them up with. Morale was largely a factor of the company commander and XO. If a unit had good leadership it generally had good morale. If the officers were idiots, morale took a dive.

In general, there was no massive objection to the draft, either before we went in or after. It was an accepted fact. It was just something we lived with. Nobody back then viewed it as a massive infringement on our liberties. The only real problems were because some people found loopholes that allowed them to avoid being drafted, like the football hero who became a teacher for three years so he wouldn't be drafted, then experienced a career change as soon as he wasn't at the top of the list. But those who dodged the draft didn't do so out of any lofty philosophical ideal that the draft was "evil" or "enslavement." I went to school with these guys. They dodged the draft because they felt they were better than other people and therefore they just plain didn't want to do.

Conceptually, I had no problem with being required to serve then, and I don't now. I do have problems with the politicians using the armed forces for purposes other than the defense of our country, but that's a problem whether or not there is a draft, and it should be addressed and rectified regardless of whether or not a draft is reinstituted.

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 04:01 PM
I pose you an interesting problem set:

1. Will the draft cover both men and women? Some will oppose women. Women will sue to get in and some men will sue to get out if women are exempted.

I don't see how we can avoid drafting women if we go back to the draft, just as I can't see how we can avoid drafting everyone.

One of the great problems in Viet Nam was that we didn't draft enough people. A young man who turned 18 in the late '50s (when there was no shooting war) had about twice as much chance of being drafted as his younger brother who turned 18 ten years later - when there was a shooting war.

We simply had a huge surplus of manpower, and didn't need more than a small fraction of those of military age -- so that's what we drafted, a small fraction. Those who were drafted regarded as unfair and they were right.

If we start the draft, we have to draft everyone.

2. What about gays? If gays who announce their status are exempt, then quite a few nongays may say they are gay to avoid service. The stigma isn't that great today. After the war or they pass they age limit, they can go to a therapist or preacher and get converted. Gays will sue to get in and nongays may sue to get out if gays are exempt.

These issues will certainly short circuit the minds of conservatives and may exempt them from the draft. :D

Not at all -- the problem is gay activists in service, not individual gay people. We don't want a gay or feminist military -- we want a military where the mission, not politics is the focus.

carnaby
February 10, 2006, 04:02 PM
A draft is in complete contradiction to our supposed American notions of liberty. No thanks. If the USA can't get by with a volunteer army, then too bad for us.

I'm with one of the earlier posters who wrote:
I believe that basic marksmanship and firearm-related skills should be taught in high school. "The more you know" kinda thing.
Especially true if they're getting a "public" education. Train them how to defend the country, and not to be GFW's. A rifleman behind every blade of grass will suffice.

wingman
February 10, 2006, 04:02 PM
I served in Vietnam. It happens that I enlisted, but most of the men with whom I served were drafted. Whether they were RA (Regular Army = enlisted) or US (draftees) made no difference with regard to either their competence or their morale. Many (a GREAT many) draftees were excellent soldiers, and there were enlistees who weren't worth the powder to blow them up with. Morale was largely a factor of the company commander and XO. If a unit had good leadership it generally had good morale. If the officers were idiots, morale took a dive.



Ditto;, I served in Vietnam, many good men were drafted, they bitched
but got the job done, some were natural leaders who stayed for 20+.

The draft is needed simply those who thumbs down on the draft don't want
to go. We have a nation now of tv watching, cell phone using folks who never
had discipline and we are paying the price, and no I am not saying "all" but enough
to cause concern to the freedom and future of this country.
Draft, discipline, two years of service which will give us a semi-trained
force in times of "serious" need. If someone cannot give two years to this
country then in fact it would be much better for them to relocate.:cuss:

Thefabulousfink
February 10, 2006, 04:04 PM
I would like to see two years of manditory service after highschool and before college. This could be in the military, police, postal service, or any of the other government services. This would help prepare students for the real world, and give students who wouldn't go to college job oportunities with possibilities for advancement.

wingman
February 10, 2006, 04:05 PM
A draft is in complete contradiction to our supposed American notions of liberty. No thanks. If the USA can't get by with a volunteer army, then too bad for us.



Excellent so we just shut the door and turn out the lights good thinking.:rolleyes:

KriegHund
February 10, 2006, 04:05 PM
I respectfully suggest that you are regurgitating something you have heard but have no first-hand knowledge of.

Thats correct.

Thank you for adding you own input though. Horrro stories are still that- stories. However it does not mean they are completely false.

We agree here though
I do have problems with the politicians using the armed forces for purposes other than the defense of our country,

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 04:06 PM
I would like to see two years of manditory service after highschool and before college. This could be in the military, police, postal service, or any of the other government services. This would help prepare students for the real world, and give students who wouldn't go to college job oportunities with possibilities for advancement.

When the lead is flying, there is no "equivallent service." You'll have what we had in Viet Nam -- every kid with some pull will get a cushy job, and only the unfortunates will go into combat.

TallPine
February 10, 2006, 04:18 PM
In general, there was no massive objection to the draft, either before we went in or after. It was an accepted fact. It was just something we lived with. Nobody back then viewed it as a massive infringement on our liberties.
Really...? :confused:

Funny, that's not how I remember the 60s and early 70s :uhoh:

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 04:20 PM
Really...? :confused:

Funny, that's not how I remember the 60s and early 70s :uhoh:

Objection to the draft was a major component of the anti-war movement.

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 04:21 PM
I'd love a draft.
I'd love to see all the right wing chickenhawks who are always clammoring for war with the world have to pick up a rifle and stand a post.

Soybomb
February 10, 2006, 04:24 PM
Ooo another of my favorite hypocrisy filled topics in these circles. We have democrats who ask for the government to butt out people's private lives, but then want to pick my pocket for welfare. We have republicans who ask for liberty and freedom and cry second amendment, then feel they know better than me how I should spend a few years of my life. As usual it comes down to people wanting to legislate what they like be it moral, ethical, religious, or a job, not whats right or just.

My stance is much simpler, you can't call yourself the land of the free if you have compulsory work programs. I'm thrilled you love the military and that it changed your life in profound ways, but don't try to force it on others. On a more practical level I don't think you'd wind up with a better military for it, only extra military spending that I don't want to pay for. If there were a true crisis that required more military, I have confidence in people of my age group to stand up and take action. If they are not doing that perhaps its the cause, and not the people, that is the problem.

wingnutx
February 10, 2006, 04:25 PM
Not only no, but hell no.

I prefer to serve with volunteers. Thank you.

carnaby
February 10, 2006, 04:26 PM
The draft is needed simply those who thumbs down on the draft don't want
to go.
I usually like to keep a civil tone, but here I say Bull???? :mad:

Tell that to the German soldiers of WWII. Every man needs to decide for himself if the cause is worthy. I think the current cause is worthy and if was 20 years old and I didn't have a wife and two kids, I'd sign up. However, it is not for the government to say which causes are worthy and which are not, and then force me to agree.

I draw the line at a draft. If the government ever tries to draft my son, I will consider that grounds for armed insurection.:fire:

carnaby
February 10, 2006, 04:28 PM
Ooo another of my favorite hypocrisy filled topics in these circles. We have democrats who ask for the government to butt out people's private lives, but then want to pick my pocket for welfare. We have republicans who ask for liberty and freedom and cry second amendment, then feel they know better than me how I should spend a few years of my life. As usual it comes down to people wanting to legislate what they like be it moral, ethical, religious, or a job, not whats right or just.

My stance is much simpler, you can't call yourself the land of the free if you have compulsory work programs. I'm thrilled you love the military and that it changed your life in profound ways, but don't try to force it on others. On a more practical level I don't think you'd wind up with a better military for it, only extra military spending that I don't want to pay for. If there were a true crisis that required more military, I have confidence in people of my age group to stand up and take action. If they are not doing that perhaps its the cause, and not the people, that is the problem.

I'm with you there, Soybomb. :)

KriegHund
February 10, 2006, 04:31 PM
I'd love a draft.
I'd love to see all the right wing chickenhawks who are always clammoring for war with the world have to pick up a rifle and stand a post.

Yes, because all those hundreds of thousands of volunteer service men and women are all just mindless drones with no political leanings whatsoever...

:scrutiny: :uhoh:

taliv
February 10, 2006, 04:33 PM
while i am totally against the draft ever, under any circumstances,

i suggest reading this page (http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html) for some interesting myth debunking about the oft-used examples of draft from the vietnam war.


they include:

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.

and

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 04:37 PM
Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.

You've got a slight problem there -- the Armed Forces stopped accepting volunteers early in WWII. The reason was to produce a steady, dependable flow of men tailored to fit the Armed Forces needs and abilities to house, clothe, train and equip them.

So unless 2/3s of the men who served in WWII signed up in the first few months of the war, that's got to be wrong.

As for Viet Nam, most of the men in my company (A-1/61 IN) were draftees.

Sry0fcr
February 10, 2006, 04:38 PM
I say reinstitute the draft if neccessary for the defense of our nation and the current volunteer force couldn't get the job done and leave it at that. If someone brought the fight to our doorstep and it was needed, I'd volunteer. I don't however see the need to put my life on the line to support anyone's political agenda or to defend someone elses soil.

Boats
February 10, 2006, 04:49 PM
I am ambivalent about a draft.

On the one hand, as a veteran, the all-volunteer model works, and is working right now even if it has some difficulties. I wouldn't have wanted to serve with a bunch of unmotivated time markers.

On the other, a general draft with exemptions only for bona fide pacifists and legitimate medical maladies certainly takes care of the huge free rider problem this country has.

Many people can pop off about their rights, political theory or whatnot, but I'd bet no war that wasn't within their own neighborhood would be enough to draw them into uniform--in other words, don't dare ask them to saddle up for their freedoms or threaten compulsion.

It is pretty sad that WW2 required 2/3rds draftees, especially after Pearl Harbor and the fact that Germany declared war on us that same day. Then again, the manpower needs were quite extreme.

In retrospect, the Vietnam draft was retarded. All in or all out is the only way to conduct a fair draft. A draft should only be resorted to in a true manpower crisis, and I don't think there ever was one during the Vietnam War, or we'd have had the South Koreans and the Europeans manning their own defensive lines.

wingnutx
February 10, 2006, 04:53 PM
WWII was mostly fought with a draft as more to stop ppl from enlisting en-masse than it was to force ppl to fight. They simply couldn't handle the huge influx and needed a way to throttle it.

taliv
February 10, 2006, 05:06 PM
You've got a slight problem there -- the Armed Forces stopped accepting volunteers early in WWII. The reason was to produce a steady, dependable flow of men tailored to fit the Armed Forces needs and abilities to house, clothe, train and equip them.

So unless 2/3s of the men who served in WWII signed up in the first few months of the war, that's got to be wrong.

As for Viet Nam, most of the men in my company (A-1/61 IN) were draftees.

vern, maybe i'm missing something here. that said 2/3rds in vietnam were volunteers, 2/3rd in ww2 were DRAFTED. it's supported by every site i've visited for info... e.g. here (http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usmilitary&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.aol.com%2Fwarlibrary%2Fdraft2.htm)

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 05:14 PM
I am ambivalent about a draft.

On the one hand, as a veteran, the all-volunteer model works, and is working right now even if it has some difficulties. I wouldn't have wanted to serve with a bunch of unmotivated time markers.

There's a lot of welfare office politics here -- "The government has a duty to pay (or defend) me, but I have no obligation to work (or fight.)"

On the other, a general draft with exemptions only for bona fide pacifists and legitimate medical maladies certainly takes care of the huge free rider problem this country has.

Exactly. But we can't afford a draft -- as I said, what would we do with an army of 12 to 15 million men and women? How could we afford it?

Many people can pop off about their rights, political theory or whatnot, but I'd bet no war that wasn't within their own neighborhood would be enough to draw them into uniform--in other words, don't dare ask them to saddle up for their freedoms or threaten compulsion.

It's the old welfare office politics again -- "I get the free ride. YOU do the work (or the fighting.)

It is pretty sad that WW2 required 2/3rds draftees, especially after Pearl Harbor and the fact that Germany declared war on us that same day. Then again, the manpower needs were quite extreme.

WWII used the draft to smooth out the flow of manpower -- they couldn't absorb all the men who volunteered in the early days, and needed a steady, dependable flow matched to the services' needs and ability to absorb them. That's why they cut off voluntary enlistments and retired on the draft completely.

In retrospect, the Vietnam draft was retarded. All in or all out is the only way to conduct a fair draft. A draft should only be resorted to in a true manpower crisis, and I don't think there ever was one during the Vietnam War, or we'd have had the South Koreans and the Europeans manning their own defensive lines.

I propose we ask those who don't want to fight how much money it would take to get them to volunteer. And then we tax them enough to pay that amount to those who do volunteer. We exempt all combat soldiers from taxes for the rest of their lives.

That way we'd get plenty of soldiers, and no one would be drafted.:p

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 05:16 PM
vern, maybe i'm missing something here. that said 2/3rds in vietnam were volunteers, 2/3rd in ww2 were DRAFTED. it's supported by every site i've visited for info... e.g. here (http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usmilitary&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.aol.com%2Fwarlibrary%2Fdraft2.htm)

I misread -- but even if 2/3s were drafted in WWII, that's a lot of enlistments in the opening months of the war.

Perhaps they are conflating "volunteered for the draft" with "enlisted."

My experience in combat units in Viet Nam (I have no experience in rear echelon units) was that the majority of the men I commanded were draftees.

shell70634
February 10, 2006, 05:20 PM
i think the number of draftees vs number of voluteers in past conflicts is irrelevant. Our beliefs and society at that time determine the number who volunteer. Dissention during WW II was not socially acceptable. During Vietnam it was the popular thing to do.
A draft could include many useful forms of service besides military service.

RealGun
February 10, 2006, 05:22 PM
I think the draft should only apply when Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Various policing actions should be paced by the manpower available and maintained via volunteer forces. Ongoing, essentially peacetime, American bluster in foreign policy will have to take into account the level of volunteer forces available. If they have to start a "war" in order to kick in the draft, then I'll leave it to Congress to validate the proposition.

ArmedBear
February 10, 2006, 05:27 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...

No draft.

But everyone is trained and everyone is in the militia. That's how it was, that's how it is in Switzerland, and I have no problem with it being that way here in the US.

There should remain, of course, limits on when and how the militia can be called. This has always been. Militias are tied to their states and even smaller localities. They cannot simply be sent overseas.

wingnutx
February 10, 2006, 05:40 PM
Switzerland has a draft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2006, 05:53 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...

No draft.

A militia is a draft. The militia concept is rooted in the idea that everyone must serve when called on.

But everyone is trained and everyone is in the militia. That's how it was, that's how it is in Switzerland, and I have no problem with it being that way here in the US.

There should remain, of course, limits on when and how the militia can be called. This has always been. Militias are tied to their states and even smaller localities. They cannot simply be sent overseas.

That's the thinking that kept us from taking Candad in the War of 1812. Fortunately, people had changed their minds by the Mexican War -- or California would not have an illegal immigrant problem -- they'd all be Mexicans.:D

Rockstar
February 10, 2006, 05:57 PM
I think my kids will better serve our Republic by getting good educations, making six-figures or more annually, hiring folks and paying taxes, than if they were schlepping around in the desert somewhere shooting Arabs.

THE BIG PROBLEM with Vietnam is that we had an idiot President who sent almost 60,000 Americans to their deaths for a nonsensical exercise in futility.

MD_Willington
February 10, 2006, 06:01 PM
I believe that basic marksmanship and firearm-related skills should be taught in high school. "The more you know" kinda thing.

Funny you mention that, every chinese engineer I've worked with, young and old, can easilly recount the training they've had with AKM based firearms...

MD

Bartholomew Roberts
February 10, 2006, 06:04 PM
I think if Americans won't fight for their country of their own free will then we deserve what we get in the long run. Paying someone to shanghai people to do the fighting for me won't delay that day of reckoning very long since it doesn't address the underlying cultural reasons that people choose not to fight for their homes.

Cosmoline
February 10, 2006, 06:18 PM
Another huge problem with the draft would be its utility in today's military landscape. In the late 18th century, when the draft really started being used, the military forces needed millions of warm bodies to march into the field. The quality and skill of the fodder didn't matter all that much. This continued through the wars of the 19th century and reached its peak in WWI, when many draftees were barely even trained but sent to the front to die. Today's battlefield is so politically and physically complex, only geunine experts have any hope of making sense of it. The business of fighting America's wars is no longer a job for draftees. A bunch of random 18 year olds pulled off the street are going to do a lot more harm than good.

F4GIB
February 10, 2006, 06:58 PM
A draft is a sound idea AS LONG AS there are no exceptions (not a single one) except physical unfitness. If you're born in the month selected, YOU go into the military (you can volunteer first or you can wait for the call-up).

F4GIB
February 10, 2006, 07:04 PM
I think my kids will better serve our Republic by getting good educations, making six-figures or more annually, hiring folks and paying taxes, than if they were schlepping around in the desert somewhere shooting Arabs.

Everyone wants to send someone else's kids.

I, and many other veterans did both (served first and made $$$ aferwards). Your kids can too.

ArmedBear
February 10, 2006, 07:11 PM
A militia is a draft. The militia concept is rooted in the idea that everyone must serve when called on.

Yes, but not halfway around the world. This can easily and DID easily coexist with professional armed forces.

That's the thinking that kept us from taking Candad in the War of 1812. Fortunately, people had changed their minds by the Mexican War -- or California would not have an illegal immigrant problem -- they'd all be Mexicans.:D

Yeah. We should have taken Canada.

Sam
February 10, 2006, 07:16 PM
I'm not much on a draft anymore, at least under the circumstances that any recent administration would use it.

I do think that at the end of the junior year of HS every person should go to basic. If you are too messed up to go through training you can cook or paste targets for them what can. No exceptions. If they are in good enough shape to go to school (even in a fanacy powered chair) you go. No conscientious objection, they need teh weapons training to know what to do if they find a loaded on in the street. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Sam

Sam

Cosmoline
February 10, 2006, 07:17 PM
A draft is a sound idea AS LONG AS there are no exceptions (not a single one) except physical unfitness. If you're born in the month selected, YOU go into the military (you can volunteer first or you can wait for the call-up).

It's impossible to impose a draft unless you make lots of exceptions.

Kodiaz
February 10, 2006, 07:20 PM
No draft cut the military until there is enough to seal the border and push the button(The BUTTON). Then untie the second and let us have whatever we want. There is a reason Hitler didn't mess with the Swiss. And it isn't hot blonde chicks.


Like Yamamoto said "a rifle behind every blade of grass"

And if there is a draft no exceptions and no deferments

Soybomb
February 10, 2006, 07:27 PM
I'm not much on a draft anymore, at least under the circumstances that any recent administration would use it.

I do think that at the end of the junior year of HS every person should go to basic. If you are too messed up to go through training you can cook or paste targets for them what can. No exceptions. If they are in good enough shape to go to school (even in a fanacy powered chair) you go. No conscientious objection, they need teh weapons training to know what to do if they find a loaded on in the street. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Sam

Sam
Why? Are kids dying in massive waves because they find loaded guns in the streets? If you want to teach marksmanship or gun safety, sure I'd probably support that as a part of PE class. Otherwise I'm not seeing the point other than a tremendous expendature of money.

Seven High
February 10, 2006, 07:35 PM
I would like to see the draft return, but with a difference. The person, male or female would be drafted into the reserves only. They would be trained just like any other reserve. They would have a two year obligation, but could go to college, get a job, get married, etc. In the event of an emergency they would be more or less ready to go.

Firethorn
February 10, 2006, 07:43 PM
No draft, until it's a question of immediate national security. IE we have to do it or our borders are going to be massivly violated. I also feel that actions against Axis powers were justified, and that sort of action may be necessary in the future.

Thus, require a 2/3rd's vote by congress and the president's approval to activate the draft for a world crisis. Activation of the militia is automatic for any crossing of hostile military forces onto our national soil, airspace, or territorial waters.

Meanwhile, anybody who successfully completes a term of military service is allowed to purchase, maintain, and use* military weapons such as rifles and grenades unless they somehow loose that right (basically doing something that would loose them their RKBA). Swiss model, but without the requirement, basically.

I would approve of military training being part of school. Pacifists, whether religious or moral, can take the medical aid route.

*For 'training' purposes, unless a real situation comes along. Otherwise they're subject to the standard safety rules.

ArmedBear
February 10, 2006, 07:51 PM
No draft, until it's a question of immediate national security. IE we have to do it or our borders are going to be massivly violated. I also feel that actions against Axis powers were justified, and that sort of action may be necessary in the future.

Thus, require a 2/3rd's vote by congress and the president's approval to activate the draft for a world crisis. Activation of the militia is automatic for any crossing of hostile military forces onto our national soil, airspace, or territorial waters.

Meanwhile, anybody who successfully completes a term of military service is allowed to purchase, maintain, and use* military weapons such as rifles and grenades unless they somehow loose that right (basically doing something that would loose them their RKBA). Swiss model, but without the requirement, basically.

I would approve of military training being part of school. Pacifists, whether religious or moral, can take the medical aid route.

*For 'training' purposes, unless a real situation comes along. Otherwise they're subject to the standard safety rules.

If there's a question of immediate national security, it will be too late for a draft in the modern world. Hence, a militia is truly needed, or it's all moot.

Pacifists can be human shields, for all I care, if we're talking about our borders being violated. You don't want to help defend the community, you're on your own.

carnaby
February 10, 2006, 08:05 PM
If there's a question of immediate national security, it will be too late for a draft in the modern world. Hence, a militia is truly needed, or it's all moot.
But that's where we're all supposed to show up with our personal arms, which the jackass gun control idiots keep trying to ban, hence neccessitating the draft if it comes down to "immediate national security." Talk about setting the stage for a dictatorship.

Art Eatman
February 10, 2006, 08:17 PM
carnaby, IMO, as one who was drafted, the last thing a dictator would want would be a US military comprised of mainly US kids as draftees. You'd have more success shoving melted butter up a widlcat's bum with a hot poker. A less repressive-minded group never wore uniforms!

One fine morning at roll call and you'd find one captain, two sergeants and an empty drill field. A gazillion guys who took their arms home and said, "Pop, you know what those idiots want to do?"

:), Art

Rockstar
February 10, 2006, 08:21 PM
Everyone wants to send someone else's kids.

I, and many other veterans did both (served first and made $$$ aferwards). Your kids can too.

You missed the point, if there was one. The military doesn't want a draft. The military isn't the screwed-up joke that it was during the Vietnam era. My kids better serve their country as I mentioned, rather than pissing their lives away in some lowbrow, boring military job.

I don't give a ratsass if Iraq is free; don't give a damn if little girls in Afghanistan get educated. Can't think of any current "motives" for having troups in Iraq that would be worth the life of one American.

Lupinus
February 10, 2006, 08:51 PM
Bad idea. You should not force everyone into the military. If we are at war for our survival as a country then absooutly and I think its your duty as a citizen to go to arms if your country needs you, but just for the hell of it absoloutly not.

What I would be in favor of is marksmenship, firearm, and survival training with some basic training elements. But there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost forcing people into the military for no good reason.

Chuck R.
February 10, 2006, 08:51 PM
I don't give a ratsass if Iraq is free; don't give a damn if little girls in Afghanistan get educated. Can't think of any current "motives" for having troups in Iraq that would be worth the life of one American.

Ya know there was a time when I used to think that way, we need to strictly worry about our on internal problems, screw the rest of the world.

All it took was a couple of deployments to some real ????holes to change my point of view. Ethnic cleansing was just a couple of words till I got the chance to see the effects. Believe me, it really takes a certain kind of person to watch a mass grave uncovered while thinking to themselves “it’s not my problem” or “it’s none of our business”.

Now I believe that there are times when “somebody” has got to do “something”. Unfortunately, that “somebody” is often us, as very few other nations have the combination of willpower and capabilities to help.

It’s a smaller world now, and we’re all effected one way or another by other folk’s problems. Isolationism doesn’t work.

Chuck

Hawkmoon
February 10, 2006, 09:08 PM
Thank you for adding you own input though. Horrro stories are still that- stories. However it does not mean they are completely false.
Oh, I have LOTS of horror stories from Vietnam.

None, however, in any way support the absurd notion that having draftees serving along with enlisted men either created morale problems or compromised the effectiveness of any unit.

I don't know of any units that "refused" to fight. We had none in the 4th Infantry while I was there. It may have happened, it may not. IF it did happen -- remember that no unit was made up entirely of draftees or entirely of enlistees. We were mixed together indiscriminately. Assignments were by MOS and rank, not according to whether your service number began with an 'RA' or a "US'. IF any units refused to fight, the unit was made up of both draftees and enlistees, and the refusal was probably due to having a company commander or a platoon leader who royally deserved to be fragged. It was not as simple as "draftees won't fight when ordered to do so."

None of that argues against the validity of a draft.

taliv
February 10, 2006, 09:09 PM
+1 chuck


however, that doesn't mean we send our stormtroopers to liberate every country. i'd much prefer to ship arms to rwanda for instance, than blue-helmeted observers

Hawkmoon
February 10, 2006, 09:10 PM
Objection to the draft was a major component of the anti-war movement.
If that's true, somebody forgot to tell me.

And I was there.

Nobody I knew ever objected to the draft on a conceptual, "The draft is enforced slavery" basis. The objections were to what some viewed as an illegal "war," and to being drafted personally, not to the concept of the draft.

Hawkmoon
February 10, 2006, 09:20 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...

No draft.

But everyone is trained and everyone is in the militia. That's how it was, that's how it is in Switzerland, and I have no problem with it being that way here in the US.

There should remain, of course, limits on when and how the militia can be called. This has always been. Militias are tied to their states and even smaller localities. They cannot simply be sent overseas.
The President (or the Government, I don't remember which) has the authority to call up the militia. Where is it stated that the milita cannot be sent overseas?

I'm just asking for the sake of getting to the bottom of the argument. Basically, I agree with you. I think it would be excellent for some real teeth to be put into the Militia Act, and for those within the operative demographic groups to be armed and trained, and required to stand ready to be called up.

But aside from when the training takes place (i.e. before or after the call-up) ... how is "calling out the militia" fundamentally different from a draft?

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 09:26 PM
Yes, because all those hundreds of thousands of volunteer service men and women are all just mindless drones with no political leanings whatsoever...

:scrutiny: :uhoh:

Ummm ok.. Where did I say that?

I'm 26 years old and did 8 years in the Marines. Finished up in Jan 2005.
http://members.cox.net/qsmumin/cert.jpg
http://members.cox.net/qsmumin/cert2.jpg

I constantly hear people talking about how we should liberate Iran or nuke North Korea or whatever. Of course there are people who havent bothered to volunteer to serve.

War wouldnt be so popular of those who were cheering for it were forced to fight.

CAnnoneer
February 10, 2006, 09:42 PM
Today's battlefield is so politically and physically complex, only geunine experts have any hope of making sense of it. The business of fighting America's wars is no longer a job for draftees.

+1

That's pretty much all that has to be said on the subject.

BTR
February 10, 2006, 10:54 PM
Ronald Reagan was opposed to the draft, considering it immoral:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1317

Art Eatman
February 10, 2006, 11:07 PM
"Today's battlefield is so politically and physically complex, only geunine experts have any hope of making sense of it. The business of fighting America's wars is no longer a job for draftees. A bunch of random 18 year olds pulled off the street are going to do a lot more harm than good."

Yeah, no way a bunch of 18-year-olds are qualified to go into engineering or medicine, either.

Sorry, but that's about as hokey a bit of bunkum as has been posted at THR.

Art

Firethorn
February 10, 2006, 11:11 PM
If there's a question of immediate national security, it will be too late for a draft in the modern world. Hence, a militia is truly needed, or it's all moot.

Note that I was talking about having the militia be a serious part of our national defense. Of the level that by constitutional law, the militia is activated, not by presidential or legislative order, but by the simple test of 'Have troops of a hostile foreign nation intruded on our borders?'. The militia is activated in such a case until they've been repelled.

I'm not talking about Canadian(or European) military coming over to play war games, or other countries coming over to learn tactics, I'm talking something like Chinese military landing in Hawaii. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 9/11. Heck, depending on the wording, the mexican army crossing over to support the drug trade would activate the militia, and by constitutional law the minutemen would be authorized to engage and destroy them.

The draft would simply be a method for calling up the militia and forming them into expeditionary units for a WWII type situation. Hopefully, through the courses taught in high school(and earlier), they only need an abbreviated course to be effective. By 'immediate' I mean within the next year or so.

War Levels(large grinding conflict not in or around US border):
Stage 1: Time: 0 - 4 months, Need filled by active duty troops.
Stage 2: Time: 2 - 24 months, filled by active duty & reserve* troops
Stage 3: Time: 12-???, filled by draft, under extreme circumstances. Otherwise maintained(like current situation) by increasing AD force levels to what's needed. Reserves are just that. They should be kept for emergencies.

Invasion of US territory:
Stage 1: Time 0: Active Duty and Active Guard within range respond.
Stage 2: Time ~8 hours(and less): Militia activated, authorized independant actions. All standby Reserve & Guard Activating
Stage 3: Time ~1 week: Militia being structured into organized groups. Reserves and Guard activated and fighting.

All periods are approximate, and depend on how quickly reinforcements are needed.

As for 'military on the breaking point', AUTHORIZE MORE TROOPS! If you can't recruit people, RAISE COMPENSATION. I can almost guarentee that if you raised pay by about 20%, none of the services would have trouble getting and retaining people even in today's situation. Adjust some of the programs so they offer real benefits again. VA loans are not as competitive as they used to be. There's so many education assistance programs out there that even the GI bill isn't that great.

Pacifists can be human shields, for all I care, if we're talking about our borders being violated. You don't want to help defend the community, you're on your own.

What about the Mormons? Gandi? While I don't like 'coward' pacifists, I respect those who hold to their beliefs even to the point of serious personal harm. IE it's more risky to be a pacifist than a potential combatent.

Put them and the physically incapable in support positions.

*Guard and Reserve are treated too similarly today in my opinion. Guard should be just that, homeland defense. Reserve are those who agree to be deployed. Adjust pay tables to meet demand.

I constantly hear people talking about how we should liberate Iran or nuke North Korea or whatever. Of course there are people who havent bothered to volunteer to serve.
I'm currently AD. I personally think that Iran needs to be liberated, as well as North Korea. Generous application of nukage is only endorsed because I like big explosions. Of course, I feel that the liberation of all the hellholes in the world is an expensive, dirty, and all too often futile effort. Iran is at a complicated point because the religious government's hold is weakening, but the people are patriotic enough that they'd unite under the theocracy to throw us out if we went in to 'assist'. Our reputation is also such there that any assistance we give to the resistance would be counter productive.

NK has the potential to devistate SK. It'd take enough resources to make China think that it could get away with something. At the very least, I think that we have to wait until we're done with Iraq. I think that we're adopting a strategy of waiting for the old guard to die in cases like Cuba and North Korea. The idea is that we wait for Castro and Kim to croak, and things will be better with their successors.

SIGarmed
February 10, 2006, 11:18 PM
Is that you Charlie Rangel?

Today, while driving around, I was listening to some recorded speeches by Ronald Reagan before he became President. Some of the things he was talking about made me think that this country will continue to spiral downward as a world power, both economically and militarily, unless we reinstitute the draft.

Possibly a draft in a slightly different form. As I envision it, all young adults, male and female, would have to sign up for the draft, as before, but there would be an option for non-military service, say in something like the Peace Corps.

But the further away we get from some kind of service to the nation, the less "ownership" our citizens will have in this country.

Thoughts?

Bob

cbsbyte
February 10, 2006, 11:29 PM
How about this idea, that we do away with the professional standing Army, Marines, and Navy. We can replace them with a well trained professional National Guard and Coast Guard men/women for protecting the boaders and waterways. Forget sending our son and daughters off to die or worse be maimed for life, for a political party's misforgotten adventures in a far away land. I rather have a military like Swizterland, Sweden or Finland that is always on duty and training. I bet you would not even have to have a mandorty service, since if you made the military into a high tech job training, then many people would join to learn skills. With the savings of not having to send troops overseas, maintaing bases overseas, having a million man standing military or needing special high tech equipment for wars we would be able to afford national healthcare for all working stiffs and their familys.

Reno
February 11, 2006, 12:23 AM
"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."

Oleg Volk
February 11, 2006, 12:45 AM
Slavery in Transition (http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/47036.html#cutid1)

Sam
February 11, 2006, 12:46 AM
No Soybomb,
I just always include a reason to get the socialists to sign on.
Its for the kiddies ya know.

Universal Military Training!

Sam

Rockstar
February 11, 2006, 09:45 AM
"Today's battlefield is so politically and physically complex, only geunine experts have any hope of making sense of it. The business of fighting America's wars is no longer a job for draftees. A bunch of random 18 year olds pulled off the street are going to do a lot more harm than good."

Yeah, no way a bunch of 18-year-olds are qualified to go into engineering or medicine, either.

Sorry, but that's about as hokey a bit of bunkum as has been posted at THR.

Art

Good point, Art. OF COURSE 18-yr-olds RANDOMLY pulled from the street won't EVER get into medicine or engineering.

wallysparx
February 11, 2006, 10:36 AM
let it be known i am anti-this-current-war, but not anti-war in general, so i'm certainly no pacifist.

that being said, indiscriminately forcing anyone and everyone into a foreign land when they don't want to be there could prove disastrous. i'd imagine even if offered a non-fighting position, a lot of folks would "accidentally" have vehicle accidents, etc. not to mention the powers that be are putting rifles into the hands of those who now have a serious bone to pick with them. the occasional instances of a nutcase throwing grenades into his own camp could very well increase.

personally, if an outside threat were to suddenly be on the beach 30 minutes from here, i'd like to believe i'd be prepared to at least try to fight back. that's what i see as defense - not all the current provocation of non-belligerent enemies thousands of miles away and calling it defense. so i guess that makes me one of the proverbial rifles behind a blade of grass.

Cosmoline
February 11, 2006, 02:03 PM
Yeah, no way a bunch of 18-year-olds are qualified to go into engineering or medicine, either.

Sorry, but that's about as hokey a bit of bunkum as has been posted at THR.

Art

Art, would YOU want a doctor operating on you who was forced to go to med school or face a long term in prison? Would YOU want an engineer desigining your buildings if his training came at bayonet-point by a bunch of DI's screaming equations at him?

The draft is a good way to guarantee that most of the folks you get will be the ones who were too poor or too distracted to plan a way to avoid the draft. That was fine when the military just needed fodder, but it's a recipe for disaster now. The amount of training and experience needed to really make a difference in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, to know friend from foe and to form alliances, is the equivalent to a master's degree. Average "grunts" these days are doing the sort of advanced work that used to be reserved for special forces. Like it or not, they're nation-building and they're doing it under fire. That's a far more complex a task than climbing over the top and charging into the Maxims.

Don't Tread On Me
February 11, 2006, 02:19 PM
Conscription is evil.


If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.


Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.


If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.

xd9fan
February 11, 2006, 02:51 PM
Conscription is evil.


If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.


Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.


If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.


WOW no truer words have ever been written on this board. Thanks!!

Cant help but think that the draft is a result of not listening to these mere words of advice:

--"If Tyranny and Oppression Come to this Land, it Will be in the Guise of Fighting a Foreign Enemy"
-- "The Means of Defense Against Foreign Danger Historically have Become the Instruments of Tyranny at Home - Both by James Madison

PressCheck
February 11, 2006, 03:18 PM
I think that every young adult Person should do some sort of public service for at least a couple of years.

pcf
February 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
Despite what the revisionist and hollywood want us to believe in no way, shape, or form can defeat in Vietnam be attributed to draftees. The US had absolute military superiority. Other than that .01%, Draftees and volunteers carried themselves in an honorable manner, and went above and beyond the call of duty. The draft was not disastrous in Vietnam, it didn't destroy America, it didn't destroy the military, it wasn't a hindrance.

If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.

Am I Un-American for thinking that using the draft during WWII was a good thing? The Red Army's use of conscripts to stop the Nazi war machine can hardly be called bad for society. The Prussians used conscripts to fight off Napoleon, was that bad for society?:rolleyes:

Modern draft, no thanks, you can't create a competent Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman, in less than two years. Today we'd put a lot into the system and not get much back out.

wingman
February 11, 2006, 04:14 PM
If you believe in liberty, than you must reject conscription/draft. Because liberty is based on self-ownership. Tyranny is based on collectivism, and collectivism is the base of nationalism.
Consider the fact that the United States defeated the world superpower without the need of a draft.
If you believe that a draft is good or ok for society - then you are NOT an American. You are a product of 20th century socialism.

This would be funny if not so sad. The idea of a draft frighten so many
because they fear discipline, do not fear guys the draft will only be reinstated
when it's too late if we follow present trend. Perhaps in time we can purchase troops from Mexico.:rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
February 11, 2006, 04:17 PM
All of the above examples were a violation of invididual rights. "Comfort women" the Japanese army used may have been good for Japan...but they were a violation of individual rights also.

Ziryo
February 11, 2006, 05:04 PM
Well, I'm glad to see that other people know how what I should do in my life better than myself.

Vern Humphrey
February 11, 2006, 05:05 PM
Despite what the revisionist and hollywood want us to believe in no way, shape, or form can defeat in Vietnam be attributed to draftees. The US had absolute military superiority. Other than that .01%, Draftees and volunteers carried themselves in an honorable manner, and went above and beyond the call of duty. The draft was not disastrous in Vietnam, it didn't destroy America, it didn't destroy the military, it wasn't a hindrance.

If by the draft, you mean the men who were drafted -- and who served honorably and courageously, you're right.

But when you factor in those who didn't want to serve, who saw political advantage in using this as an issue, and so on -- the result was we won a war at much greater cost than it should have been, and threw away the victory.

depicts
February 11, 2006, 06:07 PM
I think it would be a good idea to have two years of public service for everyone in this country.

Civilian Conservation Corps, Litter pick up, library worker, mental health assistant, hospital helper, floor washer, military, filing papers at local police department, reading teachers...almost anything.

If people want to go to college right after high school, they can serve concurrently with their schooling by part time help with edjucating less fortunate kids. I know a lot of people need to make some money when they are in school, and doing the other jobs, so pay them...it's got to be a better way to get money into the economy than welfare.

I also think that illegal aliens who want to become citizens sahould be able to volunteer to serve two years of AMERICAN service (as stated above, not just military) BEFORE they become eligible to be citizns. Then give them a few years to qualify as citizens, including speaking English, or they lose their opportunity.

I really don't want to hear the "where would the money come from" arguement because it seems like we can always find billions to drop bombs, why not find it to edjucate this country, make it cleaner, safer, better infrastructure, more nurses, doctors, trained people in trades, teachers. They could all get their start by two years of service, sorta like an appretaship in the field of their choice, but they have to do something. I'll bet there will still be plenty of people like myself who choose to enlist in the military.

By the way....VERN HUMPHERIES....I went to Vietnam and don't consider myself an "unfortunate"!!!!

PS, I HAVE some edgeekayshun....I just type too fast sometimes

depicts
February 11, 2006, 06:10 PM
@

Waitone
February 11, 2006, 06:23 PM
If we find ourselves in a conflict requiring a draft it will be because we abandoned our technological advantage by giving up our technology base. Pragmatically, war is no longer something for amatures to engage in. That said, someone needs to ask our political masters why it is we insist on more deployments while simultaneously maintaining manpower. Yeah, I know we are retooling but all I see so far is talk and no action. I see grunts on their third deployment in Iraq while no changes have taken place in Europe other than repositioning bases from old Europe to new Europe. The military is not an infinitely expanding resource despite or technology advantage. Somehow I think our political masters don't agree.

Vern Humphrey
February 11, 2006, 06:35 PM
I think it would be a good idea to have two years of public service for everyone in this country.

Civilian Conservation Corps, Litter pick up, library worker, mental health assistant, hospital helper, floor washer, military, filing papers at local police department, reading teachers...almost anything.

If people want to go to college right after high school, they can serve concurrently with their schooling by part time help with edjucating less fortunate kids. I know a lot of people need to make some money when they are in school, and doing the other jobs, so pay them...it's got to be a better way to get money into the economy than welfare.

I also think that illegal aliens who want to become citizens sahould be able to volunteer to serve two years of AMERICAN service (as stated above, not just military) BEFORE they become eligible to be citizns. Then give them a few years to qualify as citizens, including speaking English, or they lose their opportunity.

I really don't want to hear the "where would the money come from" arguement because it seems like we can always find billions to drop bombs, why not find it to edjucate this country, make it cleaner, safer, better infrastructure, more nurses, doctors, trained people in trades, teachers. They could all get their start by two years of service, sorta like an appretaship in the field of their choice, but they have to do something. I'll bet there will still be plenty of people like myself who choose to enlist in the military.

By the way....VERN HUMPHERIES....I went to Vietnam and don't consider myself an "unfortunate"!!!!

PS, I HAVE some edgeekayshun....I just type too fast sometimes

If you were in combat, you should understand it's a bit more of a sacrifice than picking up paper in the park. When there's shooting, there's no "equivallent service."

And while those who served did it with grace and dignity, those who didn't were behind a nasty political movement that encouraged the enemy and increased the burden on those who did.

As for education, I think we should start educating children long before they reach military age. When every child graduates from high school with a first-class education, then we can think about other uses for our money.

But until then, raising, equipping, clothing, feeding, housing and training a 12-million man Army is something we don't need.

ctdonath
February 11, 2006, 06:46 PM
I think something big is missing in these periodic arguments.

1. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right of citizens to keep & bear arms - with no restriction on what those arms are (not to be confused with doing dangerous things with them - another discussion).

2. The 2nd Amendment protects that right for the non-exclusive purpose of maintaining the security of the free state (largely interpreted as protecting everything from self to nation).

3. Implied by this right, and by the Militia Act of 1792 (among other writings), the Founding Fathers intended that right, practically speaking and allowing for personal conscience, embodies a DUTY to arm oneself in defense of self and nation; the Act REQUIRED every militia member (males 17-45 or so) arm himself with a minimum standard of weaponry suitable for standard modern combat.

4. Also implied, for the same reasons, is that the state should provide appropriate coordination and training for its armed citizens. The Militia Act of 1792 also required the state provide this periodically.

5. The training indicated in #4 is NOT years of compulsory military service to the total exclusion of normal life, but amounted to a monthly gathering of one's local community in the interest of WORKING TOGETHER - citizens & gov't - to form a functional, albeit loose, militia ready to act for local defense on a moment's notice.

6. The Militia Act of 1792 (remember, this was written by the same guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and not long after) called for registration of militia members: not in terms of conscripts, but of who could be relied upon for aid (big difference).

7. Conscription per se is anathama to the Constitution: it amounts to military slavery. This is very different from a free citizen fulfilling his moral duty to self/family/town/county/state/national defense by being "called up". There's a difference between registering for "we need your help" and "show up or else".

8. Compulsary military service - see #7. Losing years of your life to compulsary full-time duty is wrong.

9. When people talk of "the draft", they think of getting shipped overseas to fight battles of debatable security benefits. Strong cases can be made for protecting national security by military involvement elsewhere. The term "draft", however, generally does not refer to military action within our borders.

10. In "calling up the militia", the Founding Fathers referred to depending on citizens for defensive acts within national borders.

11. Via other long discussions, there is a distinct difference between the "military" and the "militia". The "military" is a formal body of volunteers who fight politically-directed battles outside our nation; this is brought into stark relief by "posse comatosus" (sp?) forbidding the military from operating within US borders. The "militia" is the armed citizenry which fights actual enemy assaults upon US soil as needed.

The upshot:
- The "draft" and "compulsary service" is unconstitutional. Forcing citizens, under threat of imprisonment or death, to fight outside our borders is just wrong. Military service must be voluntary; if a war is warranted, we will get the voluntary military we deserve.
- "Calling up the militia" is profoundly constitutional. Expecting citizens to arm themselves for defensive combat within our borders is a woefully under-recognized Constitutional philosophy; likewise the duty of the local governments to provide training & coordination whereby the armed citizenry can be called to defend their own region on short notice.

We don't need a draft. We don't need compulsary military service.
What we DO need is a government that encourages (if not requires) citizens to arm themselves, to train them, and to coordinate them for in-borders defense.

All this arguing about overseas & multi-year dedicated service, with no discussion of just making sure each able-bodied citizen has a rifle, ammo, basic supplies, and knows how to coordinate their use with neighbors. People wonder why I'm into guns & defense without having joined the military; answer: I want to live my life here, and be prepared to engage in local defense. I see a big difference between combat _outside_ our borders vs. _inside_ our borders. Military operations outside our borders is (or should be) good international policy; militia operations inside our borders is an imperative when appropriate.

Don't Tread On Me
February 11, 2006, 07:00 PM
Am I Un-American for thinking that using the draft during WWII was a good thing? The Red Army's use of conscripts to stop the Nazi war machine can hardly be called bad for society. The Prussians used conscripts to fight off Napoleon, was that bad for society?:rolleyes:


Yes, it was a bad thing. Exactly what is so great about two nations forcing MILLIONS of people against their will into a massive slaughter, the results of which will be the preservation of tyrannical government A or tyrannical govenrment B.


A free and independent people WILLFULLY volunteer to defend their nation when they personally feel that their nation is in danger. This is fact. To disagree with this is to say that civilians are stupid, and governments are smart in assessing threats. This is exactly what the 20th century socialists want people to believe. They want the Father/Son relationship between government/citizen. You don't know any better - so they'll make the decision of whether or not your life is at stake in some global war and then take you by threat of gun into a war.


This would be funny if not so sad. The idea of a draft frighten so many
because they fear discipline, do not fear guys the draft will only be reinstated
when it's too late if we follow present trend. Perhaps in time we can purchase troops from Mexico.:rolleyes:


AH, the classic "You don't like the draft because you're a coward"...


"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Quote by:

Hermann Goering
(1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
Date:

April 18, 1946
Source:

Nuremberg Diary (Farrar, Straus & Co 1947), by Gustave Gilbert (an Allied appointed psychologist), who visited daily with Goering and his cronies in their cells, afterwards making notes and ultimately writing the book about these conversations.

Kodiaz
February 11, 2006, 07:59 PM
+1 Don't Tread On Me

All of us Fl boys should get together in the middle of the state somewhere and have a big range day

gulogulo1970
February 11, 2006, 08:43 PM
Sure, just start it in about ten more years. By then I'll be too old.:evil:

F4GIB
February 11, 2006, 09:55 PM
Nobody I knew ever objected to the draft on a conceptual, "The draft is enforced slavery" basis. The objections were to what some viewed as an illegal "war," and to being drafted personally, not to the concept of the draft.

Note "personally".

For every draft dodger or exemption hog I knew in college, it was all about me, me, me - avoiding any risk to themselves. Except for the tiny fraction of "illegal war" lunatics, they were all willing to let someone else get his ass shot off.

Waitone
February 11, 2006, 10:04 PM
For every draft dodger or exemption hog I knew in college, it was all about me, me, me - avoiding any risk to themselves. Yep! Every one I knew though he was superior to the dolts too stupid to avoid the draft. One guy told me his future contribution to mankind was going to be too valuable for him to risk death or injury in Vietnam. Enlist? Too stupid to let 'em breed. The 60's opposition to the war gave rise to the cult of the elitist, the very burden under which we labor today. The only principaled opposition to the war I saw was the consciencious (?sp) objector who willingly served as a medic. Met a few of them and to this day I have the greatest respect for their stand.

Art Eatman
February 11, 2006, 10:37 PM
First off, the Draft does not only call 18-year-olds.

I was a draftee. During occupation duty in Korea, the outfit was a mix of Regular Army regulars, Draftees, National Guard and Reserves. Some of the Draftees had college degrees; one, I recall, had fiished law school. On average, Draftees had a bit more formal education than the Regulars.

Next: Until somebody has been in combat, and learned the tricks of that particular part of the trade, military skills are not that hard to acquire. Not even in today's high-tech world. After all, how is any military electronics skill greater than that of today's Internet children who also happen to know what goes on inside The Box?

Per my son's experience in the all-volunteer "professional" Air Force: He got to Staff Sergeant, with some 40 people working for him in "black box" maintenance and repair for F-15s and F-16s. In his opinion, most of them couldn't do the proverbial pee-pouring from boots. The final straw, after Desert Storm, was a frustrated cry from an Airman who couldn't do a rather easy fix: "This effing effer's effed, and I effing can't uneff the effing effer." My son blew off 12 years and didn't re-up.

And that's why I'm scornful of this negative attitude toward the competence of Draftees.

Art

xd9fan
February 13, 2006, 01:51 PM
Thank You donttreadonme for your post. Would I fight any enemy on this land..for this land...too live free...yes. Will I tell my three sons the same....yes. Will I fight some other persons "war"/conflict in another coutry....no. I believe in armed neutrality. I'm sure by someone's logic this is a failed policy....but its mine and I wont change.

Don't Tread On Me
February 13, 2006, 04:50 PM
There's a good reason why the government drafts 18 year olds and works its way up. And it doesn't have anything to do with physical fitness.


They like to get young men before they are old enough to feel a true sense of independence. They get young men when they are at that stage in life when they do not really consider their own mortality. They get them at a stage in life when they really do not seriously envision their future of having a wife/family/life as an older man does. They get them before they really get an opportunity to make MONEY and be productive. They get them before they form any serious political views. They get them when they are young n' dumb. Males are adventurous at this age, and most likely to be obedient and willing to try new things with little regard for their own lives.


This is predatory.


After service, they will have produced a citizen with a respect for nationalist ideas. How many times do you hear old timers (who've been in it) whine about how the military makes men out of boys. Or that the military "makes" people appreciate their country. As if to say, without being sent off to a political re-education camp, we cannot love our own country.



MANY OF YOU ARE HYPOCRITES!!!!! How on Earth can you expect the very same government that tries to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms, your right to free speech and privacy to take our children and teach them GOOD American values????


Please explain this to me.

Art Eatman
February 13, 2006, 07:23 PM
Don'tTreadOnMe, you're making the mistake, I think, of equating the government with the country. Further, it's my opinion that the government's efforts to control the population have expanded greatly with the advent of LBJ's Great Society, compared to my era in the Army in the middle 1950s. That's why us old folks tend to look at how we went and got all growed up during our military service, instead of remaining emotionally adolescent as are so many, today, in their 20s.

It was a different world for those of us who came out of the Depression and WW II.

Suggested reading: "The Fourth Turning". It's a sociology book about how society has changes every 22 years or so, from generation to generation.

:), Art

CA Dude
February 13, 2006, 11:20 PM
I am a Soldier. I have been a Soldier for the last 27 years. Joining and staying in the Army has always been my choice. I have been sent off to some very bad places and in the next few months I will be sent off again.

I enjoy reading threads about the draft and for the most part I find this one to be pretty civil.

I agree that the leadership of the military doesn't really want a draft, even if many in uniform believe that one is needed. You see the leadership in the military believe that the youth of our country, ie, those who would be drafted, simply do not have the "balls" to defend this country.

In otherwords, your kids, my kids, would not make good cannon fodder. They are lazy, self-centered fat asses, with no values. Who's parents have turned them into selfish little brats that cry their eyes out if they don't get their way.

For the most part, I disagree with that assessment. But ....

I believe that the youth of our country is up to the challenge? I have faith in the furture of our nation. That furture can only rest in the hands of our children. I hope we taught them well.

The Constitution starts with the words "We the People". Clearly we are the goverment. You as an individual may have, by your words or actions, surrendered your part in that goverment, but that is on you.

The draft, no matter how you feel about it is absolutely Constitutional. It's Constitutionality has been challenge to the Supreme Court three times throughout our history and each time the court has ruled that it is constitutional. Don't have to like it, just have to live with it.

Understand that the Constitution clearly states in Article 1 that the goverment (remember, We the People) have the power to establish an Army. The elastic clause (1802) of the constitution allows the goverment to make any laws necessary to establish an Army. The often quoted 14th Admendment, referenece "involuntary servitude" and "slavery" doesn't apply because "We the People" can not enslave ourselfs. The court heard this weak argument during WWI, it lost. Again you don't have to like it.

There are some things that could be done to change this.
1. Change the Constitution, but rememeber once our elected officials get started doing that, they may not stop and we could lose everything. I mean, do you trust those guys?
2. Get Congress to pass a law preventing a draft. But, for some reason I think if Congress could stop it, they could start it again. Back to square one.
3. Revolt, but you had better win because loser don't fair too well. It would not take very many M-1 tanks to really ruin your day. And, some of our youth would have no problem blasting your ass, way to many video games.
4. Move out of the country and try your best somewhere else. Good luck with that one.

I do not believe for a minute that the draft is off the table, it just has a napkin thown over it. And, someday the table will get cleaned off and it will be found. Then we will see how many will choke on it.

CA Dude

Alex45ACP
February 13, 2006, 11:24 PM
The draft, no matter how you feel about it is absolutely Constitutional. It's Constitutionality has been challenge to the Supreme Court three times throughout our history and each time the court has ruled that it is constitutional.

SCOTUS is by no means infallible. SCOTUS has also ruled that certain victim disarmament laws, total violations of the 2nd Amendment, are Constitutional.

A draft = forcing citizens into battle at gunpoint. It is a human rights violation.

AFhack
February 14, 2006, 12:54 AM
SCOTUS is by no means infallible. SCOTUS has also ruled that certain victim disarmament laws, total violations of the 2nd Amendment, are Constitutional.

A draft = forcing citizens into battle at gunpoint. It is a human rights violation.


First off, CA Dude - well said - I agree 100%.


Alex - of course the Supreme Court isn't infallable, it's made up of humans. That being said, I do believe that the Draft is 100% consititutional. Within the federalist papers there are a number of references to the federal government's need for the armed militia. A few of which point to the federal government's responsibility to call the militia in response to the greater threat.

Granted, they most probably referred to federal control of local militias in the case of actual invasion of home grounds, but they clearly state the need for federal control of armed militias...


Now, if you take some modern arguments that the "armed militia" is all citizens, then the argument pro-constitutionality of a draft is self evident.

xd9fan
February 14, 2006, 08:58 AM
First off, CA Dude - well said - I agree 100%.


Alex - of course the Supreme Court isn't infallable, it's made up of humans. That being said, I do believe that the Draft is 100% consititutional. Within the federalist papers there are a number of references to the federal government's need for the armed militia. A few of which point to the federal government's responsibility to call the militia in response to the greater threat.

Granted, they most probably referred to federal control of local militias in the case of actual invasion of home grounds, but they clearly state the need for federal control of armed militias...


Now, if you take some modern arguments that the "armed militia" is all citizens, then the argument pro-constitutionality of a draft is self evident.




but heres the rub. The draft is so anti-freedom, anti-private property (my body, my will) that there is no way its constitutional. You can not believe in freedom and believe in the draft.....the two do not work together.

The only way this would work in a free nation is to have voluntary armed militias and /or armies. If you really want the moral "highroad" then armed neutrality is the best policy. IMHO.

These U.S. presidents need to have the balls in start declaring war. Then we will see how many "conflicts" we get involved in. If this is a war on terror. then declare war on the groups of terrorists.

Sidenote....I'm having a hard time with the word "Empire". We are not landgrabbers ........but wow we are in everybodies business in every nation.......and I cant help but think this is not how to go about it or what the Founders wanted for us.

mp510
February 14, 2006, 11:33 AM
I personally believe that a draft would be bad for the military- look at other armies that are filled with conscripts. However, I also believe that people ought to be indoctrinated with the skills necesary to help protect our country, as well as civic responsibility and dsicipline. I would prefer some sort of cumpolsery reserve system.

MechAg94
February 14, 2006, 02:04 PM
In otherwords, your kids, my kids, would not make good cannon fodder. They are lazy, self-centered fat asses, with no values. Who's parents have turned them into selfish little brats that cry their eyes out if they don't get their way.

For the most part, I disagree with that assessment. But ....
I tend to agree, but do current military rules allow the Army to set straight the kids they would get that ARE like that? I think a vollunteer army is the only way to go with things the way they are.

AFhack
February 14, 2006, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=xd9fan]but heres the rub. The draft is so anti-freedom, anti-private property (my body, my will) that there is no way its constitutional. You can not believe in freedom and believe in the draft.....the two do not work together.

QUOTE]


Just curious, but have you actually read the Constitution, or any of the Federalist Papers?

IMO our founding fathers recognized the occassional need for some to sacrifice for the greater good. A draft isn't anymore "unconstitutional" than a federal income tax is "unconstitutional."

xd9fan
February 15, 2006, 01:50 AM
Afhack please explain to me how a draft can go hand in hand with a free nation??

People always throw the "have you read the Federalist papers and Constitution" line....love that....please enlighten me....give me the page numbers of either of these two sources on that the draft is constitutional!!!

Don't Tread On Me
February 15, 2006, 02:10 AM
As if it matters. The Supreme Court had ruled all sorts of heinous things as Constitutional, shall we be reminded of Dred Scott?


That argument does not hold water.


What matters in American liberty is the concept of self-ownership. As soon as that is violated, liberty is dead. This happens because people are always willing to ask government to initiate force on their behalf.


This is how socialists operate. They don't have a problem taxing you to death because it isn't they who come to your home to collect. It is the IRS, who if they don't collect, sends the local police to collect YOU. The police do not depend on themselves as a means to enforce the law. They depend on a firearm. The firearm is nothing special on its own, but it empowers them to deploy lethal force. Hence, everything is backed by BRUTE force and threat of death in our society.


Do not force people to do things you are not willing to do yourself. If we followed that principle, we'd have a much better society. It is that simple. If you love to get on the internet and say things like "we need to bomb China" or other war-mongering ideas, you should consider whether or not you'd like to be the fellow storming the beaches, or flying into hostile territory. If you've already been there in the past, whether by choice or by force, it is no justification for thinking that others should do the same.

ctdonath
February 15, 2006, 10:23 AM
These U.S. presidents need to have the balls in start declaring war.Excellent point. Draft? for what? war? We haven't been in a war since WWII.

No war, no draft.

If there IS a war - one wherein Congress actually declares it as such - then start with the Constitutional principle of "calling out the militia" ... which begins much earlier with allowing citizens to obtain their own suitable military arms (then, a musket; today, an M4), the gov't providing reasonable training (per Militia Act of 1792: monthly exercises in the town square), and registration (per MA1792: citizen lets gov't know what he has AFTER he gets it), culminated by the local gov't ASKING the citizens to act in the common interest.

The "draft" is built on the idea of disarmed citizens with no training being forced at gunpoint to be cannon fodder - not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Robert J McElwain
February 15, 2006, 12:27 PM
This teenager really gets it!
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Oft times people overlook this very important part of the Second Amendment and only concentrate on the second half, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But, what is being said here is necessary to the security of a free state? Yes, a Well Regulated Militia. Regulated, as many people have pointed out, means well trained and well armed.

We see, according to the Second Amendment, just keeping and bearing arms is not necessary. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a FREE state. I cannot know what American Revolutionaries meant, I can only assume. If they thought only keeping and bearing arms was necessary they could have worded the amendment something along the lines of "The Right of People to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of free state, shall not be infringed." But they did not word it like that. They worded it as "A well regulated Militia."

What inference can we draw from this? The Founding Fathers understood that only having arms will not do. People who own arms MUST be organized and trained. Organized and trained as a militia ready to defend their Freedom and Liberty from any threat from anywhere.

This has been long forgotten by most of the people outside the Freedom Movement. Let's put that aside for a moment.

What do the forces allied against freedom demonize the most? The militia movement. The militia movement has been demonized in the media, in schools, by almost all the politicians and even in neo-conservative publications and magazines. One would ask why would they demonize the militia movement so much. Is it because it stuck at some point that the freedom movement in general was missing out?

The statists always come up with an argument in favor of the Big State using the argument of security. A big state can provide good security. And Libertarians are made to back off using this argument again and again. The question is put to the ordinary public whether they would choose liberty or security? Brave people who lived in early America would obviously choose liberty. But public indoctrination centers have made cowards out of most of the population and they would invariably choose security.

But that is the wrong question. There is a quote, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answer." The question asked must be, "How can security and liberty be made possible simultaneously." I see some liberty-oriented people in the media and they beat the drum that we should not give up our fundamental rights. The average man and woman out there simply do not receive that message favorably. The debate must be changed to how can liberty and security be achieved at the same time.

The answer is simple: The Militia.

Militia can preserve both liberty and security at the same time. Militia is composed of all the people capable of bearing arms. That means that the Tyrant(s) will have to fight each and every man. But then it defeats the whole purpose of the Tyrant(s). If he will kill all the people then whom will he rule?

"You cannot enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him."
- Robert Heilein

This is the reason why Switzerland remained independent because any invading army would have to fight every last Swiss man. A militia may not have as much firepower as a professional army, but it has the huge advantage of a large amount of manpower. And when the militia collides with an invading professional army, militia has two further advantages, it is fighting in home territory and it can fight guerrilla warfare. Furthermore militiamen are fighting for their freedom and have nothing to loose as opposed to the invading standing army that fights for various reasons.

At the same time militia also provides very high security, as much security as is humanly possible. How is this so? Because the militia can be in all places; whereas, the police or standing army cannot. This is the simplest reason why militia provides great security. They are present everywhere and can combat any trouble from criminals and control freaks (tyrants) at any place where such criminals might try to infringe upon life, liberty or property of free people.

But the often-overlooked third great advantage of militia is maintenance of peace. A militia fights their best to defend their country, but its hardly likely that militia will get ambitious and go around invading other countries without legitimate grievances. That is one reason why Tyrant wannabees weaken the militia and strengthen the standing army. With a huge standing army comes imperialist ambitions and desire to stick their nose in other countries business. Militia people tend to fight their best to defend their country, but leave other countries to mind their own business. Such is the usefulness of militia. Three in one package deal: Liberty, Security and Peace. Militia may want to consider adopting this motto.

But why then do we see very few militias in the history of the humanity. For the same reason we see very little Liberty in the history of humanity. So far the history of humanity has been one of oppression and war. America was the first country to base its most basic philosophy on the ideals of Freedom and Natural Rights and thus it was one country where militia flourished. Or it is highly likely that because the militia flourished in old colonial days, freedom was flowing through this land. It has been said that Capitalism made America great, but another very important thing that made America great is forgotten: A well regulated Militia.

Freedom is linked to the maintenance of a militia, not just a right to keep and bear arms. Coming back to our earlier point on the topic of Demonization of militias. I asked the rhetorical question: Did the militia movement hit on a key weakness of the statists? It's my opinion that it did.

Normally Liberty, Security and Peace are three different things, and the welfare-warfare state despises all three of them because its revenue depends on propagation of fear and war. Nobody denies that the Libertarian party is the most pro-freedom party in America. But a lot of people are simply not interested in freedom. Some place Security above Liberty, others place Peace over liberty.

Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty god. I know not what course others may take, as for me give me Liberty or give me Death."

Sadly a large percentage of the population would say that life is dearer than liberty and peace is sweeter than freedom. Statists know that in the face of huge opposition it would take the Libertarian Party decades to turn ordinary citizens into liberty lovers like Patrick Henry. Statists also know that they would break down the resolve of lot of libertarians in this large time period. Thus the Libertarian Party was just brushed aside by them.


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Those who renounce the use of their arms against a corrupt political machine are the very people who make that violence inevitable. Passivity only encourages the machine to expand" - JFK

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits" - Albert Einstein


During the mid 90's Militias were popping up all over the country. In reality militias were defensive in nature, and the people who promoted violence were mostly agent provocateurs sent by Globalists. Why would the people who control the media who knew militias weren't dangerous portray them as such? Maybe because Militias offered a three in one deal to the citizens: Liberty, Security and Peace.

Now an ordinary person might choose security over liberty, but people in America are still pro-freedom. If they could get both of them, they would surely take it. If the militia movement had succeeded this is what the people would have got. The rank and file Liberals would also have realized that instead of a world full of standing armies under the control of politicians, a world full of national citizen militias would be a much safer and more peaceful world.

That is what, in my opinion, had the elites of the neo-conservative movement and the liberal establishment wetting their pants. A Militia can clear off the gangs without much trouble. Militias can stop the Tyranny. Militias can stop any invading foreign army. That is why it was necessary for them to demonize the militia movement before people realized that if they wanted Liberty, Security and Peace all at once then only one institution could provide such: A well regulated Militia.

I was disappointed at the CATO Institute's report that people have no right to form into a militia. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble. The Second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the Ninth Amendment protects all other rights including right to self-defense. Combining these three rights one can draw a logical inference that a group of people have a right to come together; and furthermore, have a right to individual as well as collective self-defense.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly lists: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Notice the precise words used. It lists to provide for calling forth the militia. Now it would be ridiculous to assume that the militia, that is all of the people, are not to train but are to wait until the last moment of invasion. Thus we can assume that the training of the militia is to be left in the hands of the militia itself. That means any laws against paramilitary training would be unconstitutional.

So far I explored the reason why the militia might be demonized, but what is going to be the future of the militia?

Consider the fact that on CNN they tried to link the Michigan Militia to Al Qaeda saying that the Michigan Militia was down in South America in 1985. But the Michigan Militia was formed in early or mid nineties. Clearly on a channel such as CNN they could not make such a mistake. It was done on purpose.

In the Denver spy file case, the Libertarian Party was written up as a "militia" group. Now anybody with a brain the size of a pea can see that the Libertarian Party is the most peaceful party in the United States. Again it was not a mistake.

Patrick Henry said, "I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." I was just a kid when the Reichstag - oops - I meant OKC happened, but most of the readers might remember it well. According to what I gather, there was a huge backlash against the Right Wing in general and militias and constitutionalists in particular.

Alex Jones suggested on his radio show that people instead of calling themselves militia call themselves something that would be very hard for media to demonize. Say for example Civilian Defense Forces. Civilian Defense Forces can do a variety of things, from volunteering in community events like blood drives to get favorable coverage from the media to educating the local kids about the Constitution. But mainly the Civilian Defense Force can train themselves and others to defend the civilians (their Life, Liberty and Property) against enemies foreign and domestic, without being demonized by the media.

The above two examples (CNN and Denver Spy Case) might serve as Red Flags of things likely to come. The biggest threat to Globalist Tyranny or the New World Order is the freedom movement. They know it, and they are not denying it. Indeed the Globalists might create a crisis sooner or later, a crisis of large magnitude to generate emotions of fear among the people, and then blame it on the Radical Right, and lest you forget, that includes the Libertarians.

The times that try the soul of men are coming...


Liberty Rogue is a 17-year-old student and liberty lover in Michigan. Besides operating a website www.geocities.com/homeofliberty, L. Rogue likes to play soccer, read philosophical works on freedom and individual rights, and write fictional stories.


__________________

Vern Humphrey
February 15, 2006, 12:39 PM
A long time ago there was a debate on the need for a standing Army.

It was Eldrich Gerry (for whom the term "Gerrymander" is named) who said, "If the nation were attacked, a million men would spring to arms overnight."

And John Calhoon responded, "But who would feed them breakfast in the morning?"

Calhoon understood there is a vast difference between a mob of eager volunteers and a well-trained and exercised Army.

xd9fan
February 15, 2006, 01:12 PM
A long time ago there was a debate on the need for a standing Army.

It was Eldrich Gerry (for whom the term "Gerrymander" is named) who said, "If the nation were attacked, a million men would spring to arms overnight."

And John Calhoon responded, "But who would feed them breakfast in the morning?"

Calhoon understood there is a vast difference between a mob of eager volunteers and a well-trained and exercised Army.


Clahoon needs to understand that the swiss have been doing this since 1291. Even during WWII, How will the men be feed?......everyone else that cant for whatever reason fight....It doesnt take "the state" nor a draft for people to figure out how to live free or die.

Waitone
February 15, 2006, 01:18 PM
The Swiss' position in life is in a really small part due to its position on firearms in the hands of commoners.

I submit the reason the Swiss are as free as they are is simple.
--Position on firearms
--Militia composed of the citizens
--The country blows as a place to fight a war
--The country's bankers fund wars. They successfully play both sides and make a sack-full o' money.

I really try to be idealistic but the cynicism keeps creeping out. :D

Vern Humphrey
February 15, 2006, 01:27 PM
Clahoon needs to understand that the swiss have been doing this since 1291. Even during WWII, How will the men be feed?......everyone else that cant for whatever reason fight....It doesnt take "the state" nor a draft for people to figure out how to live free or die.

And we all remember the courageous Swiss wading ashore at Omaha Beach. And who can forget how the Swiss raised their flag on Iwo Jima?

I've been in the Army and in military training and operations as a civilian career for over 40 years. I was in Switzerland once, and saw a bicycle unit in training. The lead cyclist was fired on. He ditched his bike.

Every single member of his unit came coasting down the road, and ditched their bikes at the same spot!! When I mentioned to the unit commander (who naturally had no combat experience) that a single rifleman would have wiped out his whole unit, he got very defensive.:D

AFhack
February 15, 2006, 06:26 PM
Afhack please explain to me how a draft can go hand in hand with a free nation??

People always throw the "have you read the Federalist papers and Constitution" line....love that....please enlighten me....give me the page numbers of either of these two sources on that the draft is constitutional!!!


From the Federalist Papers (sorry, I can't give you a page number, I'm working off an electronic copy)

"One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and
experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may
be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can
harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members,
and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In
the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole,
and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of
the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the
defense of any particular part, and that more easily and
expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can
possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place
the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their
officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate,
will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby
render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into
three or four distinct independent companies."


Additionally, it may be worth looking at the Oath taken by new Citizens of the USA:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."



As to the explanation you requested, I think I pointed out the basics in my first post, and while it's become regarded as cliche to say that "Freedom isn't free" that doesn't make it untrue.

The main logic is;

1) If you define "militia" as the citizenry (as many people do in support of their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment). Then I have to wonder how you could call the draft and utilization of that militia in defense of the country as "unconsititutional"?

2) The quote I've chosen from the Federalist Papers is merely one of many that support a basic tenant of our form of government. Basically, the federal government exists at all, only so far as necessary to make the most efficient use of resources that could potential be wasted if their use was left totally up to the individual states.

3) finally, if the draft actually was unconstitiutional then the federal income tax would also be unconstitutional.


xdFan, personally, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population. I believe that living "free" does not mean having the freedom to do absolutely whatever I want to do. Just as I enjoy free speech, I do not have the freedom to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


Vern Humphrey - thanks for bringing up the point about the debate about a standing army. That debate is one of the most illuminating in US political history!

308win
February 15, 2006, 06:40 PM
If the draft were reinstituted make it mandatory for every able bodied person in the draft pool. No deferments other than medical - not because mama is sick and no one else to take care of her; no student deferments because I have one semester to go; no occupational deferments; no NG or AR until after one is out of the draft pool. If one is drafted and doesn't want to go and if they can find someone to take their place let them but no voting rights, no property ownership rights including spousal rights, and no passport.

ctdonath
February 15, 2006, 06:45 PM
1) If you define "militia" as the citizenry (as many people do in support of their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment). Then I have to wonder how you could call the draft and utilization of that militia in defense of the country as "unconsititutional"?Under the draft, if you don't comply you go to jail (and if you resist that hard enough, you die). This is accentuated by the government generally frowning on anyone owning their own arms (ex.: can't buy an M4). You are also expected to serve outside US borders; federal law actually prohibits military action within US borders, so a draft practically applies only to overseas operations, more a matter of offensive politics (some justifiable perhaps) than sheer defense.

Under "calling up the militia", citizens are ASKED to defend their country with their OWN weapons (others may be provided, but you're expected to bring something to the party). The militia is also only expected to defend our borders and operate only within those borders ('cept perhaps to complete driving out invaders) - solely a matter of defense.

2) The quote I've chosen from the Federalist Papers is merely one of many that support a basic tenant of our form of government. Basically, the federal government exists at all, only so far as necessary to make the most efficient use of resources that could potential be wasted if their use was left totally up to the individual states.Behind what is written is a fundamental respect for the armed citizen. The draft is, at least from my POV, based on contempt for the armed citizen.

The quotes also hold a premise of pure defense, whereas the draft is a matter of (debatable) offense.

3) finally, if the draft actually was unconstitiutional then the federal income tax would also be unconstitutional.It was.
The feds had to add a special Constitutional amendment to permit the income tax.
They haven't done the same for the draft.

ctdonath
February 15, 2006, 06:57 PM
And we all remember the courageous Swiss wading ashore at Omaha Beach. And who can forget how the Swiss raised their flag on Iwo Jima?
One certainly may, and should, complement the US for defending and liberating many countries.
Question at hand is whether the Founding Fathers intended, via the Constitution, for the federal gov't to FORCE citizens to give their lives for other countries.

Switzerland may not have done much to defend other nations, but it has excelled in its prime duty of defending itself. While the USA has little to worry about within our borders (given Canada and Mexico as neighbors) and thus invasion has not been a problem (save a few few terrorists), I'd say the federal gov't has done a lousy job of interior defensive preparation: rather than requiring all own modern military arms (as the Swiss do), such weapons are increasingly forbidden; as such, if the militia did require calling up, most would be clueless if not downright holoplophobic.

Defending and rescuing other nations is a noble cause, but is not worth compulsary combat under threat of grave punishment.

AFhack
February 15, 2006, 07:29 PM
Under the draft, if you don't comply you go to jail (and if you resist that hard enough, you die). This is accentuated by the government generally frowning on anyone owning their own arms (ex.: can't buy an M4). You are also expected to serve outside US borders; federal law actually prohibits military action within US borders, so a draft practically applies only to overseas operations, more a matter of offensive politics (some justifiable perhaps) than sheer defense.

Under "calling up the militia", citizens are ASKED to defend their country with their OWN weapons (others may be provided, but you're expected to bring something to the party). The militia is also only expected to defend our borders and operate only within those borders ('cept perhaps to complete driving out invaders) - solely a matter of defense.

Behind what is written is a fundamental respect for the armed citizen. The draft is, at least from my POV, based on contempt for the armed citizen.

The quotes also hold a premise of pure defense, whereas the draft is a matter of (debatable) offense.

It was.
The feds had to add a special Constitutional amendment to permit the income tax.
They haven't done the same for the draft.

ctdonath: your points are well taken but I tend to disagree.

1) the outside US borders things. Federal troops are forbidden to take action within the borders of the USA and against US citizens in actions that are essentially police in nature rather than military. If we were invaded then federal forces would indeed be used within the country.

2) You're argument is based on the fact that drafted US citizens would be sent overseas to fight. In some cases I agree with you that drafting US citizens to fight overseas can, in some cases, be unconstitutional. However, I'm not personally willing to draw the overseas thing as a line in the sand on the constitutionality of drafting. I think we have to seperate the REASON for the draft from the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the draft. I can think of a lot of conflicts that I wouldn't support the draft for... Vietnam comes to mind most quickly. Does that mean that the draft was unconstitutional during the Vietnam war? No. Was it ill-advised? Yes, most decidedly so.

3) As far as "calling up the militia" being a voluntary request for assistance, please see the debate Vern Humprey refered to in his post. The logistics and training required to support a force of unknown numbers, location, and equipment is one of the reasons we eventually established a standing army. The draft is merely a logical way to expand that force when necessary.

4) Good point about the amendment for federal income tax. However, that was basically in response to the legal threat to taxation with several pending supreme court cases. In this case the supreme court has already ruled in favor of the draft, so no amendments have been necessary. Of course the court has made mistakes in the past, and they will continue to do so, it's made up of human beings. However, I almost wish they would discuss the matter at least once more in my lifetime, I'd love to read the opinions on either side of the decision.

Vern Humphrey
February 15, 2006, 07:50 PM
One certainly may, and should, complement the US for defending and liberating many countries.
Question at hand is whether the Founding Fathers intended, via the Constitution, for the federal gov't to FORCE citizens to give their lives for other countries.

Membership in the militia is not voluntary. Men who refused to train or respond to the call up were treated as criminals, fined and even imprisoned.

Switzerland may not have done much to defend other nations, but it has excelled in its prime duty of defending itself.

Actually, it hasn't -- to defend, one must be attacked. Switzerland hasn't been attacked in a long time. A good part of that is not due to the prowess of the Swiss, but to the terrain, and their willingness to serve as bankers for the combatants on both sides.


While the USA has little to worry about within our borders (given Canada and Mexico as neighbors) and thus invasion has not been a problem (save a few few terrorists), I'd say the federal gov't has done a lousy job of interior defensive preparation: rather than requiring all own modern military arms (as the Swiss do), such weapons are increasingly forbidden; as such, if the militia did require calling up, most would be clueless if not downright holoplophobic.

Yep, I'd like to see every citizen with a military weapon and an ammo allowance.

Defending and rescuing other nations is a noble cause, but is not worth compulsary combat under threat of grave punishment.

The United States acts in its own interests. Better to fight the enemy in HIS house than in OURS.

grampster
February 15, 2006, 08:24 PM
It seems to me that the original post meant less about a draft than rather a comment about some type of national service.

Now, I agree with the remarks that national service can come in various ways in a free society. eg: absorbing a good education, finding a job that is satisfying and contributes to the common good, being a peaceful, engaged and involved citizen, finding ways to share ones blessings with those less endowed etc. etc. It is obvious to me that in a free society anything one does that reinforces personal responsibility, at the end of the day, supports our nationhood. e Pluribu Unum; out of many, one. (Have we forgotten this?)

If we are, as a society, to compel anyone to do anything it ought to be in the educational arena. Unequivical understanding of the Constitution and our form of self government should be mandatory and continued to be taught at all levels of our public and private schools. The teaching of history should be as important. (Both of these subjects are virtually ignored today) Life skills such as tradesman skills, cooking, music and the arts etc are also very important educational musts that are mostly ignored today as well. Instruction in firearms should also be compulsory starting in junior high school. Goblins will learn how to use guns for bad purposes. Our good youth should be shown the value of firearms for their safety, security, sporting, competitive and hunting values. Things like math, science, medicine are skills that may be more interesting to students who have been shown, by having their interests kept alive by learning interesting useful things, that reinforce education can be fun as well as a learning experience, and gravitate to the more disciplined arenas as a result.

No better way to strengthen our country than to be engaged in all that a free society provides. Of course the status quo would have to be shaken to the core in order to accomplish this. Who's up for it?

Boats
February 15, 2006, 08:29 PM
The noble and romanticized militia has always been great in concept and usually poor in the breech.

I think it is no accident that in Article One of the Constitution, Congress is empowered to raise an Army and Provide for a Navy before word one of the militia's role is mentioned.

As early as the French Indian War, the militia was taking potshots for nepotism, cronyism, patronage problems, incompetence, and poor military performance. These complaints carried over through the War of 1812, The Mexican-American War, the Indian Wars on the frontier, and the Civil War, all wars fought in whole or in part on actual American soil or territorial claims.

It is actually evident even today why the militia model would be a military failure at anything more demanding than sporadic guerilla warfare. Look at what is required to motivate its prospective membership to even a most basic committment to a low level of military ineffectiveness.

I am finally convinced. I am against the draft, because I am against serving with a large portion of the human refuse that net would haul in. Just leave the defense of the nation to the professionals thanks, and live out your lives as Walter Mittys.

c_yeager
February 15, 2006, 11:43 PM
These U.S. presidents need to have the balls in start declaring war.

Presidents dont have the constitutional authority to declair war, you can blame congress for not doing so.


The concept of a draft is diametricly opposed to the founding principles of this nation.

AFhack
February 16, 2006, 12:00 AM
The concept of a draft is diametricly opposed to the founding principles of this nation.

I disagree 100%

c_yeager
February 16, 2006, 12:06 AM
I disagree 100%

So you really think that the founding fathers who were against even having a standing military would be happy with a system of military state slavery? Why even have a militia if we could simply draft the citizenry?

xd9fan
February 16, 2006, 01:51 AM
From the Federalist Papers (sorry, I can't give you a page number, I'm working off an electronic copy)

"One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and
experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may
be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can
harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members,
and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In
the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole,
and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of
the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the
defense of any particular part, and that more easily and
expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can
possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place
the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their
officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate,
will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby
render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into
three or four distinct independent companies."


Additionally, it may be worth looking at the Oath taken by new Citizens of the USA:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."



As to the explanation you requested, I think I pointed out the basics in my first post, and while it's become regarded as cliche to say that "Freedom isn't free" that doesn't make it untrue.

The main logic is;

1) If you define "militia" as the citizenry (as many people do in support of their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment). Then I have to wonder how you could call the draft and utilization of that militia in defense of the country as "unconsititutional"?

2) The quote I've chosen from the Federalist Papers is merely one of many that support a basic tenant of our form of government. Basically, the federal government exists at all, only so far as necessary to make the most efficient use of resources that could potential be wasted if their use was left totally up to the individual states.

3) finally, if the draft actually was unconstitiutional then the federal income tax would also be unconstitutional.


xdFan, personally, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population. I believe that living "free" does not mean having the freedom to do absolutely whatever I want to do. Just as I enjoy free speech, I do not have the freedom to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


Vern Humphrey - thanks for bringing up the point about the debate about a standing army. That debate is one of the most illuminating in US political history!



where again is the draft....Constitutional???


"I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population."

Well you and your family first!!!! This is such a reckless and dangerous line of thinking. How could you possibily protect "we the people" from the abuse of power with this logic?????? Listen to what you are saying.......how do you draw the line. The Founding Fathers would roll in their collective graves on this statement. Unbelieveable. Is this the GOP's standard on individual liberty.....in America???? I honestly dont know what else to say to you.....

AFhack
February 16, 2006, 07:02 PM
So you really think that the founding fathers who were against even having a standing military would be happy with a system of military state slavery? Why even have a militia if we could simply draft the citizenry?

c_yeager, to the first question, in short, yes. To the second question I think the terms "militia" and "draft" have earned new meanings since the founding fathers wrote about a militia. I think the last line of the quote from the Federalist papers posted above indicates that the founders would have little problem with the concept of a draft. Even in their day, the concept of taking the men of one or more of the 13 colonies, and placing them under a single chain of command. A federal command, would have been seen in the same light as we see a draft today.

AFhack
February 16, 2006, 09:15 PM
where again is the draft....Constitutional???


"I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population."

Well you and your family first!!!! This is such a reckless and dangerous line of thinking. How could you possibily protect "we the people" from the abuse of power with this logic?????? ....


Okay - me first - I've been in uniform for 24 years now and I live under the UCMJ which is a bit more restrictive than the Constitution. Like you said 'you first.' :)

As far as the abuses of power goes... Nowhere in any of my posts have I actually said a draft is a good thing. I believe it's a constitutional thing, and it may (depending on circumstances) be a necessary thing. But we have checks and balences built into our system that I believe would prevent an abuse of this kind of power. Perhaps, if a draft were implemented tomorrow, and a suit was filed, the Supreme Court might actually agree with you and rule the draft unconstitutional (I don't think it would, but it does point out the checks and balences). Of course, if enough people were actively opposed to a draft they could use their power to elect representatives that would reflect that view.


Overall, I agree with you're overall sentiment. I admire your passion but just don't know what to say to you anymore. What do you say to an honorable agreement to disagree and a text mode shake of hands?

:o

xd9fan
February 16, 2006, 10:30 PM
Oh big time on the hand shake!!........

I just think if "the state" views the draft as a thing of necessity.......then somewhere along the line we have lost the cause of freedom. Its the whole Persuasion Versus Force issue. (great article by Mark Skousen titled "Persuasion Versus Force". thinkin Google will have it) If ideas are good even great than no force would be needed. People naturally will find a way and want to do it. If a country is so good and worth of dying for......then you would never have problem finding good men and women to rise up in its defence. On the other hand if "the state" forces a draft.....I see it as a sign that "the people" have no faith in the Govt....and the Govt knows it.....or the Govt does not care what the people think one way or the other. Thats my problem.

Little bit from that article I stated above:

"The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force... Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals..."


thanks for your service by the way.
me.....I'm just an armed citizen;) :cool:

wingman
February 16, 2006, 11:30 PM
then somewhere along the line we have lost the cause of freedom.

Perhaps, but I'm more inclined to think we are just too lazy and want someone
else to do our work, be it fight, raise our children, clean our homes, so we can
simply get fat. Nope, not saying all but enough to affect the future of this
country if not changed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Reinstitute the Draft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!