When Called: Conscription


PDA






roo_ster
October 12, 2006, 05:46 PM
An interesting bit of writing on the subject.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/9822/

Kim du Toit
October 9, 2006
8:24 AM

Very few institutions arouse such passion as military conscription, otherwise known as “the draft”. To a freedom-loving people, most government coercion is an anathema, and is exacerbated by an institution in which our young sons (and even more regrettably nowadays, our daughters too) may face death, often for a cause which may seem questionable.

In case there’s anyone who still doesn’t know this, let me give you a little background. I was a conscript into the South African Army, serving my major portion from 1977-1979, with a couple of “camps” (reserve call-ups) spread out over the next few years. Happily, most of my army time was spent playing my guitar (managed through some adroit finagling before my call-up), but later on my duties were a lot more deadly. So I’ve been a conscript, and served in an army which propped up one of the most repressive regimes ever to hold power in modern times. Indeed, one of the reasons I emigrated to the United States was the prospect of having my errrr special talents being used not against foreign Communist terrorists, but against our own people, in what was delicately termed “coin-ops”—counter-insurgency operations. And that’s all I want to say about that.

So I’ve seen conscription from the sharp end, and I don’t want to hear from people who think that we shouldn’t fight “questionable” wars, because I’ve been there, done that, took no photos.

But here’s where I part company with the anti-draft people. As I said, my conscription was in support of a brutal regime, which cloaked its oppression under a mantle of fighting Communism (which it did, but that Communism was a reaction against its racist policies).

When we talk about the United States, however, we are talking about a different entity altogether. Here, we are talking about a country which has, at its root, the most benevolent and benign governmental structure of any nation yet to grace this Earth. We are talking about a country which has managed that most difficult of political maneuvers: devolving power down to its people, rather than concentrating political power permanently in the hands of a ruling class or individual. We are also talking about a country which has lived in peace, except where we cleaned up our own house to redress grievous wrongs, or helped other nations with foreign invasions.

In short, this country is not so much a nation, as it is a self-governing set of ideals. Generally speaking, we undertake warfare only as a final resort; or, as in the case of the last fifty-odd years, when we employ our vast military might to help other people breathe the same air of freedom which we, as Americans, are so fortunate to breathe every single day of our lives.

In fact, as our military power has grown and grown, and the difference between ourselves and any other nation’s power widened to an unimaginable degree, we have perversely become more and more reluctant to use it. Despite claims to the contrary, we do not engage in foreign “adventures”—in fact, our use of military force can best be characterized as reactionary. Can anyone believe that we would have ever invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without the events of 9/11/2001?

But I don’t want to get into specifics over this war and that war, because that’s not the point of this essay.

This is.

At some point in the future of this nation, there will come a time when we, as citizens of this wonderful nation, may be forced to send our sons and daughters to fight against implacable foes, to preserve what we have.

The clear evidence of this statement is so obvious as to border on being a truism. Nothing lasts forever, and the volunteer status of our armed forces is no exception. There will come a time when the effort required to preserve our nation will go beyond the capabilities of an all-volunteer army. What will we do then?

Let’s examine the possible situations under which an “all-out war” may occur, because that’s almost as important.

Understand something clearly: when we go to war to this degree, it is not going to be against a country like Great Britain, or France, or Switzerland, or any of the other Western democracies. Even against erstwhile enemies like Germany and Japan, such a war is unlikely, unless of course their governments transform into something more malignant.

Blessedly too, we are separated from most aggressors by oceans on both sides, so even an “invasion” scenario is unlikely enough to be relevant. So what’s left?

When such a war becomes necessary, it will come after a cataclysm.

What kind of cataclysm?

One of the reasons that we spend as much on our military, and the attendant technology, is precisely because we know, have always known, that sophisticated technology lessens the danger to the lives of our soldiers. What used to require squadrons of bombers, and their precious crews, can now be achieved by two pilot-less drone aircraft and a couple of stand-off missiles. We do not spend countless billions of dollars on rifles, bayonets and bullets; we buy instead machinery and technology. This, and this alone, is what has caused the power gap between ourselves and any potential foes. Even a massive nation-state like the Soviet Union was forced to submit when it became clear that within a few years, we would not only win any conflict, but would win it going away, by inflicting horrendous, nation-ending casualties on an aggressor, while being protected against the same fate by our technology.

Under this set of circumstances, there is little or no need for a conscript army, with masses of riflemen. That’s so 1916.

So this discussion might really seem irrelevant, one of those “angels-on-a-pinhead” arguments which I detest so much; but it isn’t, and here’s why.

There are malignant forces out there who already have, or will soon have, the power to inflict a cataclysm upon us—whether on our nation as a whole, or against our armed forces or civilian population centers in particular. Whether it comes in the form of massive bio-warfare or nuclear detonation is beside the point. (And those are just the most immediate concerns: there will be others.) Cataclysm could also come in the form of a nation weakened by natural disaster—an earthquake measuring 8.5 occurring along the New Madrid fault line would destroy most of this country’s refining and export capabilities, leaving us in so weakened a state that we would be vulnerable to just about any form of aggression.

When we reach circumstances such as those, we will be faced with a need greater than that which can be addressed by simple volunteerism.

Let me switch gears a little, and talk a little about why conscription may be necessary.

At its most basic foundation, conscription addresses an unpleasant little fact: most people are cowards. They might be cowards on their own behalf, or because they want to protect their children from dying, but they are cowards nevertheless.

We can dress this up with all the fine rhetoric, slogans and philosophy we choose: conscription is slavery; conscription is discriminatory; conscription is un-Constitutional, whatever.

It’s all camouflage to hide the uncomfortable fact that many people consider their own lives to be more valuable than any ideal, or the needs of the community. (I don’t have a problem with people feeling that way: I just want people to be honest about it.)

The most pernicious statement against conscription, however, is the famous one uttered by Robert Heinlein: “Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.” It is depressing to think that a man who got so much right could utter such complete nonsense.

The reason it’s nonsense, of course, is that (like many similar arguments) it ignores this basic facet of human nature: that many people value their own lives more than the existence of their country. (In the case of France, it’s a great many people, but then again, France lost an entire generation to a war of conscription, so their nervousness is perhaps understandable.)

Yes, if a cause is just, there should be no shortage of volunteers to defend it. That’s a fine theory, but it’s not the way the world works. In real life, there will be any number of shirkers, malcontents and cowards for whom nothing is worth the untimate sacrifice. Well, I take exception to that. If the cause is just, I don’t see why only the brave should be sacrificed to preserve it.

Once again, let me remind everyone of who we’re talking about here, when we talk about who would impose conscription: we would. We The People, through our elected Congressional representatives and our elected President, would impose conscription. Can anyone even remotely believe that this nation would re-introduce conscription, except under the direst of circumstances? If any good at all came from the Vietnam War, it’s that we saw that conscription is a last resort, not a first.

And the topic of the Vietnam War introduces the next line of discussion: selective acquiescence, summed up by the sentiment: “I’d fight for this reason, but not for that reason”, or “in this war, not that war”.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make that choice. The nation, We The People, through our elected government, gets to make that choice, and that’s the beginning and the end of it.

If we’re going to talk in principles, though, let’s consider this one: With freedom, comes responsibility and obligation. Freedom is not something which just is: it’s something which needs constant nurturing, constant vigilance, and constant commitment. If we are to survive as a free nation, it may be necessary for some people to die, so that others may continue to live free. As much as people may cherish individual freedom, it is an inescapable fact that individual freedom requires, in the last resort, a collective protection against its infringement, especially against an organized and powerful enemy.

Finally, I want to touch on this. Here’s U.S. Code Title 10, Chapter 13, § 311:

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are:
- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
- (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

For the purposes of argument, that’s pretty much all men (except willing volunteers over the age of 45, such as myself… bah).

Let me also remind you of another, much smaller institution:

The Nation of Riflemen—turning America back into a nation of riflemen… one citizen at a time.

The purpose of the Nation of Riflemen is not to provide the nation with a bunch of hunters, or target shooters, or tin-can plinkers. The purpose is to create a nation of people who are able to protect themselves, their families and their community against enemies foreign or domestic.

We can debate the worth or otherwise of the principle of conscription till the cows come home. I’m not interested in that. What interests me is this: We are not likely to see an American conscript army fight in the likes of Vietnam ever again. Such “foreign adventures” belong, and rightly so, to a foreign policy which depends on a volunteer, not a conscript force. We know that in these United States, conscription is likely to be imposed only in circumstances of the direst extreme, when our nation, and the principles for which it stands, are in the gravest danger.

When those circumstances come, we won’t need to have the need thereof spelled out.

Actually, we will. Because among us are those querulous cowards, appeasers and traitors who will advance all sorts of ivory-tower, high-principled arguments about why they should not have to die so that others should live free.

To those people who feel this way, even now, I have no sympathy, and I will have no truck with them. I’m not going to say that “if you don’t like it, leave” or other such inflammatory statements, although I do agree with the sentiment that those who are not prepared to shed blood to fertilize the Tree of Liberty are not entitled to live under its shade.

What I will say is this: if a cataclysm occurs, if this nation faces the direst extreme, and We The People decide, after much agonized and bitter debate, that we have to invoke USC 10.13.311; that, in other words, I or my sons will have to serve: then so will you and yours.

And I’ll volunteer to serve in the firing squad if you refuse. I’m not too old or feeble for that duty.

If you enjoyed reading about "When Called: Conscription" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Boats
October 12, 2006, 07:10 PM
Yep, he pretty much nailed it. The draft isn't about flowery freedom rhetoric or slavery, it is a pragmatic answer to the problem of free riders and atomistic cowardice.

It is good that the draft is now a last resort. As a former member of the all-volunteer Navy, I'd much prefer to fight and die amongst fellow volunteers than conscripts, but conscripts would be much appreciated over no one at all.

Ian
October 12, 2006, 07:37 PM
When the US gets invaded, I'll do my part to defend my home. But when the draft gets instituted to, say, fight a pointless and unwinnable war over an Asian peninsula, I'll be dodging like nobody's business. For all the nice rhetoric about how great the US government is, Kim appears to have forgotten what people were being drafted for last time. And I think he's pretty far off-base when he predicts what circumstances could lead to a draft in the present day.

Zrex
October 12, 2006, 07:38 PM
Slavery is ok if it is for a good cause... :rolleyes:

jrfoxx
October 12, 2006, 07:42 PM
Some very good reading there.He makes some very good, well thought out statements, and backs them up well.But, my opinion may be biased, as I wholeheartedly agree with him on the subject, as he presents it.

Let me add that I DON'T agree with a "draft" for such conflicts as Vietmnam, Irag, Afghanistan, etc.Only as needed to protect our HOME SOIL from anyone attacking it directly, so unless a foreign threat has CLEARLY displayed the means, ability and will bring the fight to our soil, and in a BIG way, then, and only then, I would supoport a draft to take the fight to them on their soil before they can bring it to us on ours (on a large scale). Which means, the Vietnam draft was wrong, as would have been one for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and most likely North Korea, as I feel it is HIGHLY unlikey that at this point, any of those place (or others like them) have the ability to bring troops or use weapons against us and do any MAJOR damage on our Soil. But if any of them looked like they could REALISTICALLY come over here and cause some SERIOUS damage, then a draft would be warrented to take the fight to them on there land pre-emtively before they could bring it here, and then, only if we didn't have enough volunteers to do the job.

Third_Rail
October 12, 2006, 07:56 PM
Zrex, you and I agree entirely.

JesseL
October 12, 2006, 08:05 PM
Slavery is ok if it is for a good cause... :rolleyes:

Yep, nothing wrong with having principles as long as you're willing to compromise them when the going gets rough.

Boats
October 12, 2006, 08:07 PM
Why do you guys hate the Constitution and representative government? The draft is legal and constitutional for all wars declared or not, domestic or not, and is even legal and constitutional absent an identified military emergency.

Is jury duty also slavery?

ETXhiker
October 12, 2006, 08:19 PM
Quite an eloquent piece by Kim du Toit. Bravo. Possibly because it was a long read, most of the responses seem to have completely missed its main points.

The most important being, that if we decide we are only are willing to risk life and limb in wars with which we agree, most of us will find a reason to disagree with any war.

JesseL
October 12, 2006, 08:20 PM
Is jury duty also slavery?

IMHO, yes.

Maybe you'd like to explain what you see as the difference between slavery and coscription. Necessity? Duty?

Lone_Gunman
October 12, 2006, 08:33 PM
This guy need to wake up and smell the coffee. The day and age of conscription is out. The day of outsourcing our military needs is about to come.

If we get into a tight spot, it would be cheaper, easier, and more politically correct for us just to outsource our military needs from India, Malaysia, or China.

This would make everyone happy. The fiscal conservatives would be happy because it would cost less. Liberals and other cowards would be happy because they don't have to fight. Warmongers would be able to get more support for their war because flag-draped coffins won't be returning to the USA. Parents would be happy that Junior didnt have to go fight and get killed. Neo-Conservatives would be happy because it would be the ultimate proof that outsourcing works. The foreign governments would be happy because it would reduce their population burden, and bring in US dollars to their economy.

Hkmp5sd
October 12, 2006, 08:38 PM
The draft is slavery. If not enough people are willing to join the military voluntarily, fine, let the country be conquered. Why force a small number of people to fight and die so the majority of other non-volunteers can live in freedom?

Hkmp5sd formerly EM1(SS), USN.

P.S. I do like Heinlein's concept from Starship Troopers. Only honorably discharged or retired military are allowed to vote and/or to run for political office.

Harry Paget Flashman
October 12, 2006, 08:41 PM
I think if you scratch below the surface you'll see a common thread amongst volunteers, draft dodgers and the people who went when their number was called...all of them were scared of being killed. Some paid their dues anyway.

thebaldguy
October 12, 2006, 08:46 PM
I met a guy from South Africa in college during the 80's. His family sent him to the US to avoid service in the SADF (South African Defense Forces). They all had issues with the South African government and the way they ran South Africa. They felt that the government was racist and facist totaliarian. Civil rights, censorship and freedom for just about everyone was questionable in their opinion. I have to respect their decision.

A draft is just that; forcing people into military service. If the armed hoardes were streaming across our borders, volunteers to defend the country would be coming in like nobody's business. If the conflict is questionable, volunteers are hard to come by.

The people know what's right and not right when it comes to conflicts. That's why I'm against the draft. Forced military service can be construed as government slavery.

Jury duty and the draft are different. When you're called upon for jury duty, you don't have to fight a war caused by failed foreign policy. You just have to decide if the accused is guilty or innocent.

brerrabbit
October 12, 2006, 08:51 PM
Ditto with Hkmp5sd and the baldguy. Unless you can descibe the difference between involuntary conscription and slavery ,,,


Brer formerly ETI/SS USN

Boats
October 12, 2006, 08:54 PM
Like it or not, the social contract of this country provides that you have delegated the decisions to whether a war is just or not, to your political representatives.

As for the semantical difference with jury duty, yes, in most cases jurors do not face the prospect of being killed in action, but you are never going to get those hours, days, weeks, or months of your life back, nor will you be compensated at FMV. If conscription is slavery and jury duty is not, then the only major difference has to be attributable to the fear of getting maimed or dying in military service, which was one of du Toit's comments.

It is amazing that people choose to live in this country up until the moment it becomes personally inconvenient or potentially hazardous.

Biker
October 12, 2006, 08:58 PM
Y'all might want to think about the time that it takes to train a soldier. If you wait until the "armed hordes are streaming across the borders", it may very well be too late.

This coming from a man who joined while the draft was going on in an unpopular war.

A well trained fighting man isn't trained in a matter of days, weeks, or even months.

Biker

Boats
October 12, 2006, 09:00 PM
Ditto with Hkmp5sd and the baldguy. Unless you can descibe the difference between involuntary conscription and slavery ,,,

Slaves generally aren't paid for one. As another distinction, military draftees are treated no better or worse than are volunteers, so they suffer from no class distinctions in actual combat service unlike the "cannon fodder" stereotype.

For a third, slavery is, and was, a private institution of one individual owning others. In a draft, the government doesn't literally own you, though on the ground that fact is of little practical importance, they are merely renting you. No draftee who has survived the experience of the sharp conflict was kept into perpetuity.

Hkmp5sd
October 12, 2006, 09:02 PM
Regarding jury duty, who has been forced to serve on a jury? Simply state you think anyone arrested by the police must be guilty or they would not have been arrested and you are gone. Simply state you think all lawsuits are bogus and you are gone. Simply be a male with hair down to the center of your back and you are gone. :)

Anyone can get out of jury duty, so if you stay, even though you don't really want to, it is because you chose to do so.

jrfoxx
October 12, 2006, 09:02 PM
Boats:
It is amazing that people choose to live in this country up until the moment it becomes personally inconvenient or potentially hazardous

Agreed.

thebaldguy
October 12, 2006, 09:05 PM
No where is it written in our Constitution that the people have to support and fill the ranks of the military in a war that's considered unjust and immoral. No where is it written that people must give up their lives for failed foreign policies.

No where is it written that the people have to support a bad government who makes bad decisions.

This is coming from a man who volunteered for military service.

Zrex
October 12, 2006, 09:06 PM
Like it or not, the social contract of this country provides that you have delegated the decisions to whether a war is just or not, to your political representatives.

It all boils down to property rights, and the most important property of all is yourself. Who owns you? Do you own yourself, or does the gov't?

brerrabbit
October 12, 2006, 09:07 PM
Hmm. Involuntary servitude. Forced subservience to others on pain of punishment. The word is sir now instead of master though.

A slave cannot just decide to quit being a slave, neither can a conscripted soldier.

A slave gets fed, a conscripted soldier gets his food and a wage. Can the soldier negotiate for a better wage? Withold his services until he gets the wage he wants?

A slave is punished if he does wrong. So is a conscripted soldier.

The ability of the government to forcibly enlist you creates the presumption of the government owning you.

The military may be a much kinder master. But conscription is just another name for slavery IMHO.

Alex45ACP
October 12, 2006, 09:10 PM
There's no need for a draft. If a war is worth fighting, enough people will sign up voluntarily. If it's not worth fighting (ie. Iraq) they won't. It's that simple. Enslaving people and forcing them into battle at gunpoint cannot be morally justified, and I would not permit the government to do that to me. Especially when the people in charge are a bunch of draft dodgers themselves.

Hkmp5sd
October 12, 2006, 09:12 PM
If a war is worth fighting, enough people will sign up voluntarily. If it's not worth fighting (ie. Iraq) they won't.

As all branches of the military are meeting and/or exceeding their recruitment quotas, (ie. iraq) must be a war worth fighting.

Zrex
October 12, 2006, 09:15 PM
Oh yeah, while we are at it, lets start a list:

Conscription = Slavery
Taxes = Theft


feel free to add on.

Boats
October 12, 2006, 09:17 PM
No where is it written in our Constitution that the people have to support and fill the ranks of the military in a war that's considered unjust and immoral. No where is it written that people must give up their lives for failed foreign policies.

No where is it written that the people have to support a bad government who makes bad decisions.

You are wrong, it is all there in Article I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; SNIPPED

According to the US Supreme Court, every time a case about military drafts has arisen, Congress has wide latitude to pass such laws as are necessary to enable it to pcarry out its ennumerated powers. It is beyond all reasonable legal question that legislation instituting a draft for manpower for use by the military is within the operative language empowering the legislative branch.

If you want to change that fact of life, you are going to need a more specific amendment than the Thirteenth as the draft has never been legally or constitutionally equated to slavery in this country.

Autolycus
October 12, 2006, 09:25 PM
I dont think conscription is a good idea. I may answer if I feel that it is a just cause. If drafted I dont think I would fight if I was against the war they wanted me to fight. If someone attacked the country it would be different. However if it is to go get some oil or to help make government cronies richer I might not go.

Have you ever wondered why it seems that the majority of people fighting in the majority of wars are usually middle class or lower class?

Lone_Gunman
October 12, 2006, 09:51 PM
As all branches of the military are meeting and/or exceeding their recruitment quotas, (ie. iraq) must be a war worth fighting.

Haven't they changed the entrance requirements be meet quotas?

Hobie
October 12, 2006, 09:58 PM
Right now, 1% (or less) of the population is doing defense of nation work. 72% of our young people are not qualified for military service under the current rules/regs/policies/law according to the VFW magazine.

I enjoyed serving the in VOLAR Army but I enlisted so long ago that there were still draftees being processed through training sites. My first AIT roomate was a draftee. Several of those folks found themselves in service and will tell you to this day that the service "saved" them.

Ian
October 12, 2006, 10:19 PM
Boats, simply being legal doesn't make something right or just, just as being illegal doesn't automatically make something wrong. A quick perusal of US gun laws should make that obvious. I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp.

How is it that so many people can think that wars in Vietnam or Iraq or Korea are actually about defending the US, or bringing freedom to the unwashed masses, or ensuring Americans' civil rights?

Boats
October 12, 2006, 11:22 PM
Who are you to take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide the national interests of the entire country?

JesseL
October 12, 2006, 11:30 PM
Who are you to take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide the national interests of the entire country?

As sovereign individual human being, who is anyone to tell me how to use my life? Government exists to serve individuals, contrary to JFK's little socialism tainted speech. I am not a national resource.

Pilgrim
October 12, 2006, 11:38 PM
Oh yeah, while we are at it, lets start a list:

Conscription = Slavery
Taxes = Theft


feel free to add on.
You guys would have loved press gangs.

Pilgrim

Ian
October 12, 2006, 11:46 PM
Who are you to take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide the national interests of the entire country?

National interests? No. But it's my life, and I've got no guilt over unilaterally deciding what's in my own best interests.

.41Dave
October 13, 2006, 12:14 AM
Who are you to take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide the national interests of the entire country?

All too often, the "national interest" is in fact the financial interests of a small elite. Don't believe me? Maybe you would believe a man who won the Congressional Medal of Honor twice, Major General Smedley Butler, who said: “War is a racket. It always has been.”

“I was a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers,” Butler said. “In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

In a speech in 1933, Butler said the following:

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”

Fighting to defend your home and your neighbors from invaders is one thing, BEING an invader of someone else's home to further the interests of the 3000 or so people who really run this country is entirely another.

The draft isn't about flowery freedom rhetoric or slavery, it is a pragmatic answer to the problem of free riders and atomistic cowardice.

The draft is slavery, by any rational definition. "free riders?" "atomistic cowardice?" A lot of people these days seem to mistake jingoism for patriotism and a refusal to scrape and grovel and march to the tune of our all-knowing masters (who love us and obviously know what is in the "national" and hence our own, interest) for cowardice. For crying out loud, the Founding Fathers warned repeatedly against even having a standing army, never mind enslaving people to fill it's ranks.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 12:35 AM
The other side of Kim? Did he revamp his site, or does he have two of them?

The following should be agreed upon by all, no matter their opinion of the draft.

If one's countrymen are being drafted into war, any citizen worth his salt will answer the call and take his lumps with his brothers, even if he feels a draft is slavery. Draft-dodging is poor citizenship, selfish childishness and cowardice, not necessarily in that order.

For the record, I remain undecided on the issue.

carlrodd
October 13, 2006, 12:42 AM
National interests? No. But it's my life, and I've got no guilt over unilaterally deciding what's in my own best interests. -Ian

that's ok. just don't be upset when the federal government unilateraly decides to impose whatever penalties it institutes for avoiding service.

Lucky
October 13, 2006, 12:59 AM
Why would you need a draft, if every male between 18 and 40 is already in the militia? Is it because recognizing that would mean you'd have to allow those people to own the arms their positions would suggest? I figure that if someone goes out of their way to avoid that, they must be up to something.

brerrabbit
October 13, 2006, 01:01 AM
that's ok. just don't be upset when the federal government unilateraly decides to impose whatever penalties it institutes for avoiding service.

Not very likely truth be told. If the federal government decided to hold a war and no one came, and then was silly enough to put all the draft dodgers in jail, they would immediately alienate quite a few people and pretty much multiply the people in federal custody by many fold.

BTW the federal government pretty much lost its free lunch card on this issue in Vietnam.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 01:07 AM
Lucky, I'm not sure I understand you.

Zedicus
October 13, 2006, 01:11 AM
A Country like the USA should not have any need for a Draft.
(See: 2nd Amendment US Constitution)

We should be as Kim Du-Toit's own website says "A Nation of Riflemen" and should have as a WWII Japanese Admiral has been reported as saying "A rifle behind every blade of grass".

Personally I don't support the Draft in any way, if someone does not want to Volunteer for military service, forcing them is only going to cause problems no matter which way you do it.

I don't Volunteer myself because of various reasons, although if the USA were to be Invaded tomorrow you wouldn't need to even ask me to defend myself, family, friends, etc, I'd be one of the first to grab a rifle & open fire.

Another good Argueing point to use with the Liberals if you ask me ;)

Just my $0.02 :cool:

Zundfolge
October 13, 2006, 01:17 AM
If the second amendment was followed to the letter than I could understand those who oppose a draft no matter what (still maybe not 100% agree, but understand)..

For the most part I agree that forcing citizens to be soldiers is wrong, plus its a bad idea (conscripts generally don't work as hard or fight as well as volunteers, sure some conscripts do, but by and large they are a less effective fighting force).


HOWEVER, if the choice is between having our nation invaded by a foreign army, or having our position in the world downgraded enough that invasion or collapse is clearly down the road then we must be pragmatic and if there aren't enough volunteers than we reinstitute the draft. Yes it sucks, but if we stand on the principal that all drafts are wrong and allow our nation to fall then there WILL be drafts (and likely worse) when the new bosses show up.

Unfortinately this is one of those few areas where libertarian theory just doesn't mesh with harsh reality.

strambo
October 13, 2006, 01:20 AM
There's no need for a draft. If a war is worth fighting, enough people will sign up voluntarily. The Iraqi people allowed themselves to be controlled, abused, tortured and dominated by a minority regime for over 30 years. The Afghans, fought off the (other) superpower...only to let a rag-tag bunch of Taliban rabble take over, mostly Pakistanis. The Taliban did as much, if not more damage than the Soviets. Why didn't they fight them? Skin color and religion (name of it only) the same? People often accept unimaginable cruelty and do not fight. There are big cultural differences to be sure, but at the root of it, many people would rather put their head down and hope for a liveable result, than risk their lives to fight for a better world for their children. Often the result is not "liveable" for millions and millions of people...sucks to be them.:uhoh:

If we were invaded, there would no doubt be many seemingly good reasons why we should just go along with our new UN, or Chinese or whoever taskmasters. I mean, the Chinese let Taiwan do it's thing, it would still be America....they'll leave us alone for the profits. Why die just to have our government be soveriegn when we can live the same way, just under a new set of UN world government rules...which only have minor changes for the safety of all people? Yep, plenty of excuses why people wouldn't stand up.

Screw 'em, you'll find me on the "recoil side" of blue helmet 600 meters out if you need me. Can't make a slave out of me...I'll volunteer first! Suckers, I know how to beat that draft system.:neener:

strambo
October 13, 2006, 01:23 AM
I don't Volunteer myself because of various reasons, although if the USA were to be Invaded tomorrow you wouldn't need to even ask me to defend myself, family, friends, etc, I'd be one of the first to grab a rifle & open fire.-bold added by me. What if you would never be needed to protect your family and friends because you just don't live in a strategic area? You are desperately needed elsewhere along with every able bodied person. If you wait until they get to your town...it might just be the new Gestapo by then, too late. Sure, you are free to die now however you like, or live under the new tyranny you did nothing to stop.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 01:24 AM
I think perhaps if our national security depended on forcing people into military service, then it would be necessary, regardless of what freedoms are infringed.

On the other hand, if our national character becomes so thoroughly degraded that too few of us will volunteer to fight such a war, then we may not be worth saving.

I don't know.

Zundfolge
October 13, 2006, 01:26 AM
This is also something that many on the left don't get when they put that bumper sticker on their car that says; It Will Be A Great Day When The Schools Will Have All The Money They Need And The Air Force Has To Hold A Bake Sale To Buy A Bomber.

No, it won't because it will mean the military is so under funded that they are going to have to draft your little granola munching sons to defend this country ... that or the enemy will burn your well funded schools after they teach your flower child daughter their version of "free love".

Our well funded military is well funded in part to make sure there are plenty of people who want to sign up so that a draft is less necessary.

Warren
October 13, 2006, 01:28 AM
This being a gov run program I see many less than excellent outcomes.

For example I could see myself being drafted and end up driving trucks in Florida while some poor Floridian gets drafted and ends up driving trucks up here in NorCal.

What if the "crisis" is country wide? Say I'm already invloved where I live, where my family is, why should I let myself be removed to some other area? I see no upside in leaving my family uncovered. Am I supposed to trust that politicians and bureaucrats know what they are doing? I don't think so.

And the politicians probably caused the problems in the first place. They own up to that and, with their fighting age sons, go into the fray first and I'll think about following them.

Malice
October 13, 2006, 01:48 AM
If there was a draft tomorrow, because soldiers were needed in Iraq, I would volunteer ASAP. That is me. I am not a particularly big fan of that particular war, but I would go so someone else would not have to go.

There has been no war in U.S. history that I would not have volunteered for if a draft was announced.

However, the draft is wrong.

For all the talking people on THR do about the principals of our founding fathers, people need to pay more attention to what another poster said on the previous page.

The Founding Fathers warned against ever having a standing army, much less forcing people into a bloated one to fight a war with a country halfway around the world which posesses no way to harm a single U.S. citizen (Vietnam, etc)

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 01:58 AM
Well spoken, Malice.

xd9fan
October 13, 2006, 01:59 AM
I love the draft is not slavery, but necessary crowd.
How is it that you assume all the wars fought by this Govt are necessary, rightous and do really protect my, your freedoms?
Most Conservatives have little faith in Govt with almost every program/idea it creates. (Conservatives are for limited Govt because we know how the Govt sucks at getting it right compared to the free market) Yet some will run to Govt and act like its this Holy, pure as the wind driven snow group that doesnt have an mislead bone in it body when it come to fighting wars. The track record in the last 50 years is not comforting.

I will gladly join a citizen army to protect the homeland. But never if it means going half way around the world to fight some administrations "conflict". I dont trust our Govt with my life. I think thats what freedom means.........

c_yeager
October 13, 2006, 02:31 AM
The constitution gives congress the right to raise armies. It does not specifically state that those armies can be raised through the conscription of it's population. It has been interpreted as such because it proved usefull.

Oh, and for those saying that the draft is exclusively a part of being an American citizen, you might want to tell that to our population of legal resident aliens, who are also required to register for selective service and are subject to consription just like anyone else.

In that vein it is interesting to note that part of the oath required during naturalization includes this statement:

I will support and defend the Constitution and 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;

I guess naturalized citizens are bound by this oath. As a born citizen I never took it, neither did most Americans.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 13, 2006, 02:35 AM
There's nothing patriotic or noble about going over to Iraq and stepping into the middle of a religious power struggle that we only got into as a form of "oil colonialism" and defense contractor subsidies.

Who's going to invade the US? A bunch of drunk hockey fans? Gardeners looking for jobs?

Powderman
October 13, 2006, 02:40 AM
If one's countrymen are being drafted into war, any citizen worth his salt will answer the call and take his lumps with his brothers, even if he feels a draft is slavery. Draft-dodging is poor citizenship, selfish childishness and cowardice, not necessarily in that order.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 13, 2006, 03:06 AM
What's wrong with poor citizenship? What's so great about having an empire? I don't want an empire. I don't want a powerful country that can go around stomping on other countries. I want a country with a weak military, one that spends little money on military adventures and conquest. Big powerful militaries and big powerful countries don't bring any benefit to their citizens.

Combat-wombat
October 13, 2006, 03:17 AM
The following should be agreed upon by all, no matter their opinion of the draft.

If one's countrymen are being drafted into war, any citizen worth his salt will answer the call and take his lumps with his brothers, even if he feels a draft is slavery. Draft-dodging is poor citizenship, selfish childishness and cowardice, not necessarily in that order.
Bravado about courage and honor is nice, until you're shot in the head.

Cosmoline
October 13, 2006, 03:26 AM
In real life, there will be any number of shirkers, malcontents and cowards for whom nothing is worth the untimate sacrifice.

True enough. But how many times do you have to smack yourself in the head with a hammer before drafting said shirkers, malcontents and cowards and trying to force them to fight seems like a good idea?

The day and age when wars were fought with massed troops backed by officers with pistols at the ready to kill any deserters are LONG LONG GOND and are never ever coming back. The draft is as anachronistic as the massed infantry formation or notions of "elan."

Moreover, the day and age when the feds represented the people, and deserved recognition as the voice of the people, is long gone. They are only barely representative. The militias, in contrast, are traditionally controlled on a state by state basis as a defensive force to resist invasion. The last time they were used on a large scale was in fact to fight off an invasion--by the federal government.

72% of our young people are not qualified for military service under the current rules/regs/policies/law according to the VFW magazine.

All the more reason a draft would be an abject and costly disaster. I'm sure it would "save" many tough cases, and help a lot of kids find their way. But that's not what the damned military is for. It's not to help people get in shape or "straighten them out." It's for winning diplomatic arguments by slaughtering the enemy. That's it.

Of course, using the military as a social services organization to "toughen up" the young and give them a sense of national purpose is a key part of any socialist system. You'll find it in use across Europe, as well as the sort of tyranny Kim ran from. If you support it, you support that system and that worldview. You believe the nation stands in the place of parents and we stand in the place of children. I do not hold to that view.

On top of all this, if it really comes to a mass invasion of American shores the whole thing is moot. The soldiers will find their nation of origin a glowing hole with a half life of thirty years. If their nation also has nukes, then it's bye bye to all of us--again making the whole issue nicely moot. We can destroy all advanced life forms on the planet, and as long as we are willing to do so we will find ourselves very secure indeed. Frankly we have even less call for a huge standing army now than we did in the 1790's, but don't try telling the Pentagon that.

STAGE 2
October 13, 2006, 09:41 AM
I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp


Translated to read: I'm going to reap the benefits of everything this country has to offer but if it ever comes time to pay up, I'm out of here.

I love it how people will sit here and scream till they are red in the face about how liberals are reading the 2nd amendment out of the constitution, but at the same time they sit here and spout off stuff like this.

Either its in there and legal or its not. Congress has the power to raise and maintain an army and is granted all powers necessary and proper to do so. The draft is LEGAL.

I don't want to get my ass shot off in some foreign land any more than the next guy. But thats not the point. As an american citizen I have made an agreement. I agree to delegate my decision making to certian representatives. I agree to follow the laws that are made by these representatives providing they are within the confines of the constitution. By doing this I have waived my right to pick and choose which laws I follow.

Those that advocate dodging are 1) not being honest ins so much that they are probably cowards and 2) are pissing on the constitution. Its just that simple. As far as the draft being slavery, its not. If you don't want to subject yourself to possibility of being drafted, then leave. Its your choice. I doubt you will find a place any better, but the option is yours. Slaves simply don't have any choice.

Taking this in perspective, do I think the draft is a good thing, probably not. A volunteer army will always be better in a number of ways. However the draft is and should be an option where the defense of our nation is concerned.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 09:45 AM
Bravado about courage and honor is nice, until you're shot in the head.
Notions of liberty and freedom are nice, until your country is conquered and enslaved.

We could go back and forth like that all day, and never make a reasonable argument for either position.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 09:47 AM
There's nothing patriotic or noble about going over to Iraq and stepping into the middle of a religious power struggle that we only got into as a form of "oil colonialism" and defense contractor subsidies.Unless you're doing what your country asks of you. The concept of the draft is not made wrong or right by temporary conflicts and what we think of them.

Manedwolf
October 13, 2006, 09:48 AM
I think perhaps the populace wouldn't mind the idea of a draft so much if they weren't fully aware that many of the current administration and their loudest supporters all got deferments (even five deferments) or otherwise got out of the last one due to money and family connections.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 09:52 AM
Oh, and for those saying that the draft is exclusively a part of being an American citizen...
Forgive me if I don't comb the whole thread here, but who said that ?


I guess naturalized citizens are bound by this oath. As a born citizen I never took it, neither did most Americans.If you don't wish to fulfill the same duties as other citizens, why are you still living in the US?

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 09:57 AM
We are talking about a country which has managed that most difficult of political maneuvers: devolving power down to its people, rather than concentrating political power permanently in the hands of a ruling class or individual.

And, in my lifetime, this has now gone in the opposite direction.

At some point in the future of this nation, there will come a time when we, as citizens of this wonderful nation, may be forced to send our sons and daughters to fight against implacable foes, to preserve what we have.

That's right and considering our jet-around-suburbia-minivan culture needs
cheap foreign resources (I know it's verbotten to mention the O word) to
continue the "everlasting" credit bubble spending spree, some of those
sons and daughters will have to die so the bread and circus can continue
in their hometown coliseum. Yes, let's not make the hard choices now like
conservation and even rationing. Without taking strong internal measures
today, we will end up with conflict. What we are seeing overseas right now
is only the beginning. It will be worse if we continue down this road.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make that choice. The nation, We The People, through our elected government, gets to make that choice, and that’s the beginning and the end of it.


"our elected government"? You mean the one where my reps are bought off
by whoever can write the biggest check? Can you say cronyism and
patronage?

Slavery is ok if it is for a good cause...

Sad but True. It depends on what the public perceives at that point in
history and how it relates to their own comfort. This is why at one time
it was considered "ok" to enslave African-Americans and send Native
Americans on forced marches where many died in this country. There is still
a class of people in this country that it is considered ok to kill without
breaking man's laws to the tune of approximately 1.6 million/year.

Only as needed to protect our HOME SOIL from anyone attacking it directly,

There would be no shortage of volunteers to actually defend this country
if it came down to their homes being torched and their wives and daughters
raped. There is always a large amount of collective self-interest that can
be tapped at those times.

Why do you guys hate the Constitution and representative government?

This is akin to saying "You're either with us or against us."

As a recent OIF Vet and having seen what has transpired over the past
year, I have absolutely no difficulty saying with great confidence that
our government no longer follows the Constitution and is no longer
representative of the legal citizens within its borders. This is exactly
what happened prior to our founding Revolution when the King of England
cr@pped on his citizens in the colonies. Whoops....they were called
subjects and servants back then. At least today we maintain the name
of citizen as we are moved back to serf.

The draft is slavery. If not enough people are willing to join the military voluntarily, fine, let the country be conquered.


I can understand the frustration that spawns this statement and certainly
the counter-statements to it that the alternative of being conquered would
be worse. All I can say is study Roman history and be honest about
where this country is currently and how it has arrived here.

Like it or not, the social contract of this country provides that you have delegated the decisions to whether a war is just or not, to your political representatives.


Delegated? Please.....They've been stolen and bought off. All I have to
see is who is the member of which corporate boards among the rotating
apparatchniks both in the agency/cabninet beaurocracies and the political
parties to know that the social contract has been used like toilet paper.
It's been broken. To say otherwise is completely naive.

Sorry, to sound negative, but the truth hurts and when the two by four of
reality finally hits you in the face, you'll know it. From what I've read
there are still a lot of people here who have been ducking that swing by
sticking their heads in the sand.

Let's be honest about what this country has become and that it will take
conscription to maintain it. It's about comfort and enterntainment and like
ancient Rome, it will take ruthless internal measures and external conquests
to fuel it. That means those of you who haven't volunteered in the armed
forces to sustain it should not be surprised when your children are drafted
in the not too distant future. Study your history: every empire must do
this to survive and the US will be no different if it wants to be an empire
as well. Either we do that, or we limit ourselves like other countries
such as.....hmmmm.......Switzerland.

A draft will happen again. Don't doubt it for a second and unless you're one
of the privileged families in this country who have over the last few
decades squirmed out of overseas service when "their nation called upon
them", your kids will go or there will be a consequence for them. The
State will come into your home and enforce it with them.

Again, study Roman history (Ottoman and Habsburg are good, too). At one
time, the "noble" families of all those empires use to personally lead their
troops into battle and suffered along with them. We can't say that about
America today, or since Korea, can we? This is a hallmark of empires and
their internal dynastic families.

Some will take my writing here as somehow anti-American. Absolutely not.
My family fought in the Revolution and our obscure name is part of its history
from coast to coast. We were even West of the Mississippi before Lewis
and Clark started their expedition. My point is, let's be honest with
each other about what we have right now. Be an adult and understand
that there will be blood on your hands or those of your children if we are to
have an Empire rather than a Republic.

wingman
October 13, 2006, 10:08 AM
Sad thread, comparing slavery to the draft is like a whining teenager.
The draft is needed now more then ever and if the US is to stay a
super power the draft will be reinstated. Those of you who fear discipline
perhaps you will miss it.:rolleyes:

Manedwolf
October 13, 2006, 10:11 AM
I'd be fine with it if I wasn't sure that the scions of the wealthy and powerful would most certainly be weaseling out of it, as their parents pull strings to keep their little darlings out of harm's way.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 10:14 AM
The draft is needed now more then ever and if the US is to stay a
super power the draft will be reinstated.

Wingman, thanks for reminding me that we don't say "empire" anymore since
"empire" has often been associated with "evil" (which is not always accurate).

We are suppose to say superpower in Newspeak rather than empire.

Sorry, must've put that memo down the memory hole by accident. :p

silliman89
October 13, 2006, 10:37 AM
Maybe you'd like to explain what you see as the difference between slavery and coscription.

Well let's see:

If two slaves have a baby, the baby is also a slave. If two conscripts have a baby, not only would it not be a conscript, but the mother would be assigned shore duty or discharged.

Slaves can be bought and sold. No U.S. conscript has ever been sold to another country, or purchased from another country.

Slavery is for life. Conscription is until services are no longer required.

Rebellious slaves are normally killed, like rabid animals. Conscripts may still be conscientious objectors, just like the volunteers.

If you don't think that it's right for the big bad government to draft people to serve our country, you're entitled to your opinion. The founding fathers disagreed, and so do I, but you're entitled to your own opinion. But to say military conscription is slavery is just ignorant, and belittling to survivors of slavery.

That being said, I think the era of conscript armies is behind us. Not only is the time it takes to train to use modern weapon systems prohibitive, but any random draft would also bring in a majority of unsuitable candidates.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 10:45 AM
Empire and superpower simply do not have the same meaning. To equate them is nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 10:47 AM
That being said, I think the era of conscript armies is behind us.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Also, let's not miss the fact that there are two similarities between
slaves and conscripts: both can be shot for simply running away.

Again, some cliff notes history that is relevant to slaves, conscripts
and their change in status over time:

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

Cool...and it's from the Ottoman Empire.

Byron Quick
October 13, 2006, 10:47 AM
The Paris peace accords were signed in February 1973 a month before my nineteenth birthday. 15 months later, i enlisted in the US Army Reserves. Not to avoid the draft for there was no draft.

Robert Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis who maintained a reserve commission in the US Navy until his death. In earlier years he served on the local draft board. He was also a Democrat during this period of his life. Later on, he left the Democratic Party. About the same time he resigned from serving on the draft board.

His later stand on conscription was one derived from long thought, experience, and observation.

I stand with Heinlein in this matter.

The government doesn't have to draft non-military workers for a simple reason: in the free market for workers it competes with other employers and offers pay and benefits that are competitive. The Army has met its recruiting goal for 2006 by competing better. There's not but two reasons the military will not reach its recruiting goals in wartime-either the US is in a war that doesn't make sense to the citizens of military age or it is not offering adequate pay and benefits. Fish or cut bait.

Involuntary servitude is slavery. Heinlein in one of his essays on conscription described a Russian painting. A winter scene with heavy snow and a sleigh being chased by wolves. The occupants of the sleigh were tossing unfortunate companions out to the wolves one by one to slow down the wolves while lightening the sleigh. That's the morality of conscription. I do not own you or your children.

There were still draftees in the military when I enlisted. Judging by the attitudes I saw...I wouldn't want my flanks dependent on those troops...I'd be better served with no troops on my flanks than those troops.

The following is draftee graffiti on a Fort Jackson latrine at one of the rifle ranges during the summer of 1974:

"We are the unwilling,
Led by the incompetent,
to do the unnecessary,
for the ungrateful."

If you knew you were going into combat supported by troops with that attitude...what would your morale be?

MechAg94
October 13, 2006, 10:48 AM
Quote:
I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp


Translated to read: I'm going to reap the benefits of everything this country has to offer but if it ever comes time to pay up, I'm out of here.

I love it how people will sit here and scream till they are red in the face about how liberals are reading the 2nd amendment out of the constitution, but at the same time they sit here and spout off stuff like this.

Either its in there and legal or its not. Congress has the power to raise and maintain an army and is granted all powers necessary and proper to do so. The draft is LEGAL.

I don't want to get my ass shot off in some foreign land any more than the next guy. But thats not the point. As an american citizen I have made an agreement. I agree to delegate my decision making to certian representatives. I agree to follow the laws that are made by these representatives providing they are within the confines of the constitution. By doing this I have waived my right to pick and choose which laws I follow.

Those that advocate dodging are 1) not being honest ins so much that they are probably cowards and 2) are pissing on the constitution. Its just that simple. As far as the draft being slavery, its not. If you don't want to subject yourself to possibility of being drafted, then leave. Its your choice. I doubt you will find a place any better, but the option is yours. Slaves simply don't have any choice.

Taking this in perspective, do I think the draft is a good thing, probably not. A volunteer army will always be better in a number of ways. However the draft is and should be an option where the defense of our nation is concerned.
Amen Brother!!

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 10:49 AM
Empire and superpower simply do not have the same meaning. To equate them is nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

The only person tricked is one suffering from doublethink.

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 10:55 AM
Here is something "ignorant and belittling" from that "whining teenager", Ron Paul:


Conscription Is Slavery
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
January 14, 2003

Two Democratic Congressman introduced legislation last week to revive the military draft, taking a race-baiting shot at the President and his war plans. Their idea is not new, however, as similar proposals were introduced by Republicans in the months following September 11th. Although the administration is not calling for a draft at this time, last week's controversy shows while conscription has been buried for 30 years, the idea is not necessarily dead.

Neither the Pentagon nor our military leaders want a draft. In fact, a Department of Defense report stated that draft registration could be eliminated "with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment." Today's military is more high tech and specialized than ever before, and an educated volunteer force is required to operate our modern Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.

So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops already stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don't have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country we label a threat to the new American empire. Military leaders conservatively estimate that 250,000 troops will be needed to invade Iraq, while tens of thousands already occupy Afghanistan. Add another conflict to the mix- in North Korea, the Balkans, or any number of hot spots- and our military capabilities would quickly be exhausted. Some in Washington would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.

Military needs aside, however, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state. On a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents Slavery and involuntary servitude.

I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and consign military conscription to the dustbin of American history. 500 million dollars have been wasted on the Selective Service System since 1979, money that could have been returned to taxpayers or spent to improve the lives of our nation's veterans.

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul60.html

MechAg94
October 13, 2006, 10:58 AM
Back in the old days they had the state militias. Every able bodied man was in the militia. The militia was sometimes called up for duty by the Feds. Most people then would think it very shameful and cowardly to avoid duty in the militia.

Personally, I like the idea of universal military service/training. However, I would prefer it be in the form of state militias rather than service in the federal military.

The only way I see a draft being brought back any time soon is if Democrats take power back in Congress. They would do it for "equality" or "diversity" reasons. Democrats in Congress are the only ones introducing legislation to bring back the draft in this day and time.

I really can't believe I saw someone bitch that jury duty was akin to slavery.. Of all the stupid things to say, that has to be beat all. Civic responsibility is nothing to sneer at. The lack of civic responsibility by a lot of people is why we end up with power hungry crooks in charge of our govt.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 11:00 AM
I agree to follow the laws that are made by these representatives providing they are within the confines of the constitution.

Amen brother!

Yes, Amen, Brother, when that Consitution is being followed:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
....
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Darn that pesky two year rule! But, who's following it anymore anyway?
After all the Founding Fathers put it in there to get in the way of building
our empire, oops, global superpower. ;)

Come on, guys, let's be honest about what we are while we're all hanging
out in the Wolf Den this morning. Quit couching your language in lamb's wool.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 11:06 AM
Also, let's not miss the fact that there are two similarities between
slaves and conscripts: both can be shot for simply running away.So can volunteer soldiers.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 11:10 AM
So can volunteer soldiers.

Roger that.

I gotta run, so in the spirit of Empire I'll leave you guys with this blast from
the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_IYiko5YR8

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 11:11 AM
Empire and superpower simply do not have the same meaning. To equate them is nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

The only person tricked is one suffering from doublethink.

Understanding political and historical terms is not doublethink. To equate them is simple ignorance. Whereas a superpower is any polity that is significantly powerful enough to be capable of hegemony, an empire is a particular way of organizing actual hegemony.

deadin
October 13, 2006, 11:20 AM
much less forcing people into a bloated one to fight a war with a country halfway around the world which posesses no way to harm a single U.S. citizen

http://home.att.net/~deadin/twin.jpg

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 11:32 AM
I didn't know this was a photo thread. I could post some pictures of some dead Iraqi children if you would like.

Manedwolf
October 13, 2006, 11:33 AM
Deadin, repeat after me:

IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11
....

THIS guy did, and he's still free, laughing at us. Osama bin Forgotten.

http://terrorism.freeservers.com/images/osama.jpg

SuperNaut
October 13, 2006, 11:35 AM
9/11 panel (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/) found no links between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq.

Cheney and Rumsfeld (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm) have both stated that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Bush himself (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm) has stated that he cannot claim that there is a connection between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq.

But thanks for the photo.

Combat-wombat
October 13, 2006, 11:39 AM
Don't even go there- Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Period.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 11:42 AM
Most have not addressed what KdT wrote. That's OK, this is an open forum and we wouldn't want to burden any poor dears with the task of responding to close argumentation rather than straw men.

FWIW, I am against a draft for any but the largest and most dire of threats. Note, I wrote threats. Waiting until the hypothetical Hun is at the gates is too late. I would be against a draft for the usual superpower duties* such as the Brits did in their glory days or the USA does now.

I would note, again, that libertarianism is at odds with the COTUS and (small-"r") republican government. Many replies here prove that out. Truly, such folks who write such as, "I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp," do not expect to uphold their end of the bargain and ought to be run out of polite American society.


* Keeping the peace, keeping the sea lanes free & open, attenuating regional conflict, etc.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 11:51 AM
Let me add that I DON'T agree with a "draft" for such conflicts as Vietmnam, Irag, Afghanistan, etc.Only as needed to protect our HOME SOIL from anyone attacking it directly, so unless a foreign threat has CLEARLY displayed the means, ability and will bring the fight to our soil, and in a BIG way, then, and only then, I would supoport a draft to take the fight to them on their soil before they can bring it to us on ours (on a large scale).
Such requirements would certainly preclude the USA from involving itself in the European theater in WW2 and would possibly preclude the USA from engaging in the APcific theater in WW2.

The Germans, Italians, & their allies did not have the ability to launch and invasion of the USA or cause any serious damage to US soil.

The Japanese attacked Hawaii & Alaska which were not ststes, though they could be argued as being US soil. I don't think most would call them "Home" soil. They did not demonstrate that they could fight on our home soil in a "Big" way, either.

Combat-wombat
October 13, 2006, 11:53 AM
Truly, such folks who write such as, "I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp," do not expect to uphold their end of the bargain and ought to be run out of polite American society.
My paycheck is consistently raped by the government. I think that would count as more than upholding the end of this perceived "bargain" you speak of. I don't recall signing any agreement or deal with society, though.

Third_Rail
October 13, 2006, 11:56 AM
But that's in the Constitution, too. They're allowed to!



So if they make it so that whites are second class citizens, as per the Constitution by amending it, is that ok?

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 12:03 PM
I think the point of deadin's picture is to demonstrate that the Iraqi regime was quite capable of harming American citizens. After all, the 9-11 attacks did not require WMD, military strength or even official state backing, just tolerance and back-door support by friendly regimes. Hussein had proven himself friendly to terrorists. Of course, this was only one good reason to destroy him.

Rezin
October 13, 2006, 12:05 PM
I don't think the 9/11 photo was meant to imply Iraq had anyhthing to do with the the towers, but rather that illustrated that "a country halfway around the world which posesses no way to harm a single U.S. citizen" can indeed find a way to harm a US citizen.

longeyes
October 13, 2006, 12:06 PM
The issue today isn't the draft per se, it's awareness, allegiance, and narcissism. As a society we have huge problems that will be thrown in bold relief if and when we experience a truly general mortal threat.

SuperNaut
October 13, 2006, 12:15 PM
I don't think the 9/11 photo was meant to imply Iraq had anyhthing to do with the the towers, but rather that illustrated that "a country halfway around the world which posesses no way to harm a single U.S. citizen" can indeed find a way to harm a US citizen.

I think the point of deadin's picture is to demonstrate that the Iraqi regime was quite capable of harming American citizens. After all, the 9-11 attacks did not require WMD, military strength or even official state backing, just tolerance and back-door support by friendly regimes. Hussein had proven himself friendly to terrorists. Of course, this was only one good reason to destroy him.

IOW the same vulnerability that has always existed. I don't see how his photo strengthens the argument for conscription in any way.

SuperNaut
October 13, 2006, 12:19 PM
The issue today isn't the draft per se, it's awareness, allegiance, and narcissism. As a society we have huge problems that will be thrown in bold relief if and when we experience a truly general mortal threat.

I'd like to believe that we would rise to the occassion. However the fear and willingness to trade liberty for safety after 9/11 speaks otherwise, and strongly backs up your statement.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 12:19 PM
The day and age when wars were fought with massed troops backed by officers with pistols at the ready to kill any deserters are LONG LONG GOND and are never ever coming back. The draft is as anachronistic as the massed infantry formation or notions of "elan."
Not to pick on you in particular Cosmo, but such an attitude is what perenially leaves us unprepard for the next war.

The day and age when wars were fought with massed troops backed by officers with pistols at the ready...is over. Our opponents, the indians, fight using stealth and ambush. We must rely on small, light, and hard-hitting men who can fight and move as they do.
(And who is his next opponent? The British Regular. Who fights in massed squares & lines and relies more on discipline & the bayonet than muskets, rifles, and stealth. The same British Regular who routed the militia whenever the militia came out of hte woods to fight.)

The day of the fortress is gone. The most important thing is the offensive. We must maneuver ourselves to take advantage of the terrain and put our enemy at the disadvantage.
(That notion died in the trenches & fortifications of Flanders.)

The day of quick & decisive manuever is gone. We will erect massive fortifications and funnel our opponents onto ground of our choosing. We will support our infantry with heavily armed & armored tanks to take out hard points.
(Maginot, meet Bliztkrieg.)

We need fast armored columns and mechanized infantry to counter the massive Soviet threat and numerical superiority in men & materiel. We will hold them at Fulda while NATO gets its azz in gear and prepares for a counter-offensive.
(Skinny commies in black pyjamas teach us what we forgot about guerilla warfare during our south & central American interventions.)

We need to focus on counter-insurgent warfare and leave the armor behind. The days of massed armor & infantry attacks are gone.
(The next opponent is unknown, but we will have "learned" the lessons of counter-insurgency and prepared for it.)

My point being, we do not know what the future brings. An array of capabilities is what is needed. One of the possible capabilities is to deploy a large stinikn' number of men armed with rifles to take & hold real estate.

* Not to pick on the French military. They just provide nice examples of taking it in the face after preparing for the last war. Others were equally at fault, but had more time/space to get their shinola together.

SuperNaut
October 13, 2006, 12:23 PM
I'm of two minds concerning conscription.

On the one hand I gained many valuable skills during my years in ROTC and I am a big fan of the Isreali idea that everyone serves two years.

On the other hand I fear a chicken-hawk administration with a surplus of cannon-fodder.

Manedwolf
October 13, 2006, 12:24 PM
If there's one form of military tech that's needed now, it's viable, robust individual armored exosuits, able to protect troops from small-arms fire and explosions, but still let them run around in an urban environment with enhanced perception.

Other than that, the same as has been true since ancient times. You can only hold and secure territory with massve amounts of feet, sandals, or boots on the ground. The toys don't do it.

Sleeping Dog
October 13, 2006, 12:33 PM
I think the point of deadin's picture is to demonstrate that the Iraqi regime was quite capable of harming American citizens.
We shouldn't invade a country because it has "capability". Almost all the hijackers were Saudi, and trained in Afghanistan. So, invade Afghanistan? Fine. Saudi? ok. Iraq? why?.

Other capable countries would have to include Denmark, Greece, Canada, forming an axis of countries we least expect to invade.

More on topic - Draft? Yeah, I'm all for it. Call it slavery, or call it "paying dues".

Regards.

Zundfolge
October 13, 2006, 12:36 PM
The Germans, Italians, & their allies did not have the ability to launch and invasion of the USA or cause any serious damage to US soil.
Of course our involvement before they could do damage to us is what prevented them from being able to get into position to do damage to us.

If they owned Airstrip One and the Bearing Sea than they could have mounted attacks on us directly, however going into a preemptive war against Germany saved a LOT of American lives in the long run.


jfruser pretty much summed up my position ... I don't like the draft and believe in most cases its not just unnecessary but does more harm than good and goes against the principals our republic was built on. That said, I'm not willing to take it off the table completely ... there may come a day when the survival of our republic requires a draft.

JShirley
October 13, 2006, 01:12 PM
Those that advocate dodging are 1) not being honest ins so much that they are probably cowards and 2) are pissing on the constitution.

Well, shucks. Something seems rather odd about calling me- someone who hates the concept of the draft, but who is currently sitting in Kabul, Afghanistan- a coward...especially coming from someone who does NOT use his real name (as I do) or even give his state (as I always have), often with zip. It's easy to be a badass on the internet...isn't it, Tex?

(For what it's worth, I'll take a "no-holds-barred" fight with almost anyone*. I should be back in Georgia for midtour leave at the beginning of December, if you want to show up with a waiver. PM if you want my contact information.)

Feel free to explain to me how I- who have sworn an oath to defend that very Constitution you accuse me of pissing on- am denigrating the Constitution because I find no explicit authority, and seeming prohibitions, for a draft?

When you look back at WWII-era Germany, how do you feel about the German soldiers? Knowing what (surely) you know about the Nazi regime, would you criticize any young Germans who evaded service? How could you have the unmitigated gall to criticize those who follow their conscience? That's pathetic, and by pathetic, I mean your action, as opposed to calling you pathetic, which would be a forum rules violation worthy of warning...kinda like calling members cowards.

*with the sole prohibitions being "no biting" and "no eye gouging".
---
Now, to everyone else who doesn't need to get personal:

If the US is involved in a conflict and it does not have enough popular support to wage said war, maybe- just maybe- we shouldn't be in the war. The US has been involved in groundless conflicts before, with the Spanish-American War, and the "Revolution" that netted the US the area for the Panama Canal being two that spring readily to mind.

Should the US be in Iraq? I don't know. I do know I- and every other soldier in the Infantry Training Brigade at Fort Benning in late 2001- knew we were going to Iraq. We would have known it, even if the drill sergeants hadn't told us every damn day. We were going back.

And it had nothing to do with WMD.

Was Saddam evil? Yup. Should we be in Iraq? I don't know.

Du Toit's got a big mouth, though...and some of us love our freedom - that freedom which makes American truly great- enough to pull triggers on traitors to its spirit, should he ever have the opportunity to follow through with his volunteering. <spit>

Cosmoline
October 13, 2006, 01:14 PM
Those who advocate the draft come in two primary groups. First are the Democrats and closet Socialists who want to use the threat of a draft against the administration for political reasons. The next are older men who think the draft is a good way to "toughen up" the slack-jawed youth of today. In neither case do they cite sound tactical reasons for a draft. Nor do they explain how conscripting those who do not want to serve is going to make the military more effective. In some ways they just want to reflexively go back to the "good old days" of WWII. They want to fight that war again, but of course that's not going to happen.

Not to pick on you in particular Cosmo, but such an attitude is what perenially leaves us unprepard for the next war

But what possible set of circumstances would lead us to draft ten million men, form them into tight lines, and march them at the enemy with officers at the ready to shoot any shirkers? It's well and good to say "we don't know what the future will bring." But I think we can rule out flying monkeys, Swiss pikemen and Napoleonic style battles.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM
THIS guy did, and he's still free, laughing at us. Osama bin Forgotten.

+1. But, just to be fair, it is hard finding one man since it's like a
needle in a haystack.

After all, look at the acrage of opium poppy fields that have doubled since
the war began --I think we're up to 250,000 acres in Afghanistan at this
point.

Now if all of our eyes in the sky can't find acres of poppies on a hillside,
we can't expect it to find a particular guy living in a mud hut ;)

JShirley, don't get me wrong since I do respect your service in Afghanistan.
Quite frankly had I been deployed there rather than Iraq, I might have
a different outlook on things than I do now. It has been, shall we say, a bit
of a let down to join after 9-11 because of 9-11 and then be sent to a
country that had nothing to do with it. Had our country pursued OBL in
Afghanistan without entering Iraq, we would have had so much more good
credit to spend at home and abroad right now. No, I'm not talking about
credit in the muslim world where the extremists are strong, but more
importantly, among our allies in the West. I mean, holy cr@p, the
Brits are getting ready to pull out! However, the Brits have their own
history of what happened when their empire/superpower/whatever-is-PC
was over-extended and now know when it is necessary to make a
tactical withdrawal aka "retreat" aka "cut and run (to fight another
day)" ;) rather than dump resources and people into a sand-trap and continue
to swing like a geo-political novice.

This is why I am saying that it is inevitable that there will be a draft if
we continue down this current road.

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2006, 01:50 PM
As all branches of the military are meeting and/or exceeding their recruitment quotas, (ie. iraq) must be a war worth fighting.

They just lowered their standards.

brerrabbit
October 13, 2006, 02:02 PM
jfruser

I would note, again, that libertarianism is at odds with the COTUS and (small-"r") republican government. Many replies here prove that out. Truly, such folks who write such as, "I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp," do not expect to uphold their end of the bargain and ought to be run out of polite American society.


Uh what bargain did I make with society? To be cannon fodder in a conflict I apparently do not believe in? If the people that believe in the conflict think it is so important, they can go fight it, raise the pay level high enough, or inspire the people that they wish to fight it to sign on.

Why does the weight of the bargain fall solely on men in a certain age group with no means to get out of it? Society has no expectations of women or older people? Sound pretty prejudiced to me.

As with the others that feel that that draft is close akin to slavery that have been called cowards.
I have 10 years USN,got out as ET1/SS. It would be very nice if the advocates of the draft would show us their bones.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 02:06 PM
We shouldn't invade a country because it has "capability". Almost all the hijackers were Saudi, and trained in Afghanistan. So, invade Afghanistan? Fine. Saudi? ok. Iraq? why?. Let's not argue the Iraq war all over again. But let's do understand that fighting terrorism is not about getting revenge on those directly connected with the actual hijackings. It is about neutralizing the people and organizations that are attempting or may reasonably be expected to attempt such attacks in future, while discouraging others from joining the terrorist camp. Whether Iraq fits with that is the larger question that will pull us way off-topic.

JShirley
October 13, 2006, 02:09 PM
Thin Black Line,

We got no problems, brother. I find your comments in this thread very thoughtful and well-grounded, and indicative of both experience and education. Thank you for your service.

While I know folks- good folks- who believe in the draft, it does seem more common for supporters to be those who have not served.

I didn't believe in the draft when I enlisted after 9-11. I think it is antithetical to the spirit of freedom that we have hopefully not yet fully lost.

11M,

I am afraid this is just another "War On -" that will be an excuse to enlarge government power, drag on for years, and give an "enemy" to focus on, distracting from events in the US. We could talk about what the War on Drugs is about, too- as opposed to what it's supposed to be about.

John

STAGE 2
October 13, 2006, 02:18 PM
Well, shucks. Something seems rather odd about calling me- someone who hates the concept of the draft, but who is currently sitting in Kabul, Afghanistan- a coward...especially coming from someone who does NOT use his real name (as I do) or even give his state (as I always have), often with zip. It's easy to be a badass on the internet...isn't it, Tex?


Being a badass has nothing to do with it. I said probably. Meaning some people will truly have genuine objections to a draft that involve something other than personal safety. However there are many others that use the mantra of conscientous objector as an excuse to save their own bacon. A former president comes to mind. As a practice in numbers I'd be willing to bet that there are more of the latter than the former.



(For what it's worth, I'll take a "no-holds-barred" fight with almost anyone*. I should be back in Georgia for midtour leave at the beginning of December, if you want to show up with a waiver. PM if you want my contact information.)

:rolleyes:


Feel free to explain to me how I- who have sworn an oath to defend that very Constitution you accuse me of pissing on- am denigrating the Constitution because I find no explicit authority, and seeming prohibitions, for a draft?

Thats because you probably haven't gone over the constitution very carefully or read any case law. It is beyond dispute whether a government has the power to raise and maintain an army. That combined with the necessary and proper clause clearly gives the government the authority to conscript troops. You may disagree with the propriety of it, but you cannot dispute the legality of it.

As a result, by selectively complying with parts of the constitution you agree with and parts you don't (just like the gun grabbers do) you are effectively pissing on the constitution.


When you look back at WWII-era Germany, how do you feel about the German soldiers? Knowing what (surely) you know about the Nazi regime, would you criticize any young Germans who evaded service? How could you have the unmitigated gall to criticize those who follow their conscience? That's pathetic, and by pathetic, I mean your action, as opposed to calling you pathetic, which would be a forum rules violation worthy of warning...kinda like calling members cowards.

First, your germany example is a false analogy. German laws and governmental structure aren't in any way applicable to our system. Secondly, our nation isn't in the business of creating the 4th reich. People can take pot shots at the administration about "conquering" iraq, but rational minded people know there is no comparison from what is going on today to what is going on back then.

Liek I said at the end, a draft isn't an effective way to run an army. However it is an option that shouldn't be taken off the table because it might be needed one day. And yes virginia it is legal.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 02:18 PM
They just lowered their standards.


This is true since it allows for more waivers for education deficiencies, criminal
past, and raising the age. The other thing is lowering the monthly quotas in
order to say they have been met or exceeded.

Now something else that has been allowed for many years now is that illegal
aliens can join the military and that this can be a gateway to citizenship.
I have absolutely no problem with that. However, when the trend becomes
the foreign-born making up more of your army than native-born, students of
history will know not only that the Republic has given up the ghost but that
the name of the corpse will not be known for much longer either. By then,
there'll be a web-tab on spp.gov where anyone who just landed in by plane,
boat, train, or coyote in North America can enlist in the North American
Army :D

Oh, wait, I think I found a tab with a promo on it already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc

Remember --service guarnatees citizenship.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 02:36 PM
I don't see how his photo strengthens the argument for conscription in any way.I don't think it was meant to. There is another argument going on about which wars are justified, and the picture is probably aimed at that argument.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 13, 2006, 02:38 PM
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
....
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Darn that pesky two year rule! But, who's following it anymore anyway?

Do you have some evidence that there is appropriation of money to support a standing army that is for a longer term than two years?

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 02:42 PM
11M,

I am afraid this is just another "War On -" that will be an excuse to enlarge government power, drag on for years, and give an "enemy" to focus on, distracting from events in the US.

John. You seem like a sharp guy, so I really don't know how you can say that. You must know that terrorists have been warring on us for decades and have now begun making massive strikes inside the US and other western countries. Surely, Shirley, you also know that more such attacks are being planned.

JShirley
October 13, 2006, 02:47 PM
I don't contest that. I'm just afraid of where it's going. :(

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I think you can be skeptical about how the WOT is being fought. But that something has to be done seems obvious.

miko
October 13, 2006, 02:55 PM
P.S. I do like Heinlein's concept from Starship Troopers. Only honorably discharged or retired military are allowed to vote and/or to run for political office.

One must, of course, differentiate between Heinlen's personal libertarian views and his brilliant protrayal of a fascist society in "Starship Troopers".

miko

JShirley
October 13, 2006, 02:59 PM
I'm very afraid of where our country is headed...kinda like Thin Black Line, I guess.

I'm glad the US is powerful. OTOH, we are now the 3rd largest country, and have somehow evolved the job of policing the world. Alarming. From what I can see of recent history, no one country is ever big enough to take on the world, and I certainly don't want my country to try. I'm afraid the US is headed towards a hegemonic role that it cannot sustain, that will in fact drive more attacks, which will be naturally force us to be even more active abroad, which will provoke MORE attacks, and so forth.

tuna
October 13, 2006, 03:01 PM
I'm against the draft on the basis that it would only bring malcontents into the military. I question those who would be "forced" to serve, of course, I also quesiton the "volunteers" who cry when they are deployed because they only joined the military for benefits, and never thought they'd have to go to war by joining the military.

As for those who think that people will rise up and come together when confronted by a real enemy, think again. Most will stand aside and watch as people are taken away, because "they" aren't after them. This will go on until "they" come for them and no one is there to help out. Look at the numbers of military age men who did not join the military, who didn't stand against Hitler because it was a "Jewish problem" - come to find out, Hitler gassed as many Christians as Jews.
I think the cowards will stay cowards, until the bitter end.


US Army 1990 - 1994 (2 years Korea)
Air National Guard - 1994 - Present (Bosnia, Kososvo, Kuwait, Iraq)

ArfinGreebly
October 13, 2006, 03:02 PM
Boy, what a roller coaster.

For the record, I'm a recovering coward. I signed up with the USAF to reduce my chances of having to meet Charlie. I got lucky and wound up in England and Europe. It was my way of dodging the draft.

I've never been particularly proud of that.

For thirty years I shunned arms and those who bore them. Idiot. I finally found enough courage to revisit my feelings, fears, and reasons. I've submitted my ego and allowed myself to be taught. I have learned and I've overcome my irrational fears. Now my biggest problem regarding armaments is one of budget limitations.

Let us not believe that I hold any sort of righteous high ground.

With that background, let me -- rather than support or oppose the draft -- propose a different approach altogether.

One of the areas where I actually have some expertise is education. I've worked in remedial and accelerated education and taught for a number of years at the college level (computer languages). I do not, myself, have any kind of college or university degree.

I do, however, know what works.

Conscription works only to the degree that individuals have a fairly well developed sense of self-preservation. Your conscripts are just trying to stay alive and get through all of [this], encouraged only by the knowledge/hope that it won't last forever.

(Personally, I would prefer locally grown mercenaries. With them, you have a willing contract AND self-preservation working for you.) :evil:

Right, then.

It is correct that the kind of soldier we need today is the well-trained specialist. Of course, he also needs to have the basics down cold. Rifle. Pistol. Knife. Hand-to-hand. Wilderness survival. Care and feeding of equipment. How to tie knots. Navigation. Medical/first aid.

Let me direct your attention to Exhibit A, our Modern Public "Education" System. It's more or less compulsory. One could argue that this is, in itself, a form of slavery, not entirely unlike conscription except for the "being shot for deserting" part. An unwilling subject is forced (coerced?) into "learning" things for which he has no use and, in today's system, things that not only aren't true but that are simply opinion. History, as a subject, is being seriously redacted, to the point where -- in a school here in Western Nevada -- US History is taught starting in 1865, because "all that earlier stuff was covered in lower grades." The ante-bellum stuff is (in this school) simply not taught nor tested.

Private schools are doing a better job. A way better job. Their viability depends on the quality of their product.

Let us presume that we all agree that an education is necessary. Let us also presume that we all agree that a well-regulated militia is necessary.

I can, in a private school setting, outperform the public schools all day every day with less funding and fewer resources, and my graduates will bloody well be able to read, write, calculate, recite history, appreciate Shakespeare, and know the difference between right and wrong.

Moreover, given some talented experts in the ballistic arts, some grizzled oldsters who know hunting and camping, a few anglers willing to give up a little of their time at the lake, a sailor or two, and some facilities, I could likewise turn out "well-regulated" militia members with pride in their abilities, confidence in their fellows, and the willingness to stand by their nation.

Without spending a single tax dollar. Without de-humanizing a bunch of youngsters. Without violating their fundamental rights.

Hell, you could even have laws making it mandatory that every citizen shall 1) have an education, and 2) be well schooled in the needs of a militia, and still accomplish all of this without a draft. Or public schools as we know them. (Not that I would favor such laws.)

It's a culture thing. If everybody grows up knowing how to do the necessary and it becomes a thing of pride, you wouldn't have to coerce anyone to pick up a rifle, you'd only have to ensure he had access to one.

As for the military specialties, those kids that want to make a career of the Armed Forces will find basic training pretty much a cake walk, and they can get down to the specialist stuff without having to clear a bunch of mind-numbing hurdles first.

And, with a broad base of citizens already trained in the basics, with their own personal rifle behind their own personal blade of grass (you need to have one to graduate, after all), an emergency call-up to the defense of one's community or nation is much less traumatic.

Your "coefficient of cowardice" would be lower, too.

Additionally, I daresay, voter competence, voter turnout, and citizen participation would improve.

I offer these thoughts in the spirit of thinking outside the box.

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 03:06 PM
Ya know, there really is a free market solution to this. If you can't attract enough volunteers, raise pay and benefits to get what you need. It works for private business, why not the military?

Or are all the pro-draft people also anti-free market?

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 03:26 PM
Do you have some evidence that there is appropriation of money to support a standing army that is for a longer term than two years?

You and I have gone around on this point before. I will maintain that the
Spirit of the Consitution on this matter was such that we were not to
maintain far-flung garrisons on a continuous basis throughtout the world
and promote it through a never-ending series of Executive Orders. The
extent of which has been promoted mostly since WWII and has brought
this former Republic to the sorry corroded state in which it lays prostrate
today.

You have been open and honest about your position about America's place
in global politics and your support of a certain strain of globalism as a result.
I will cling to the original intent of the Founding Fathers since every other
previous pre-globalist system has shown itself as both tyrannical and prone
to implosion. We're always going to disagree. Sell your product to someone
else who's not a recovering neo-con. 'Nuff said.

STAGE 2
October 13, 2006, 03:28 PM
Or are all the pro-draft people also anti-free market?

Thats a false choice. You can be both. Furthremore our nation does not have a completely free market. We have constraints on wage, subsidies, welfare and all sorts of other things.

Similarily, a person can think that a volunteer army is just great, but also think that the draft should be left as an option for when things get bad.

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
Similarily, a person can think that a volunteer army is just great, but also think that the draft should be left as an option for when things get bad.

If it gets so bad that a free market solution fails, then you are going to loose anyway because 1.) No one believes in your cause and 2.) You are so outmatched nothing will save you.

c_yeager
October 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
I love it how people will sit here and scream till they are red in the face about how liberals are reading the 2nd amendment out of the constitution, but at the same time they sit here and spout off stuff like this.


Actually, we object to the liberals reading the second amendment in a circumspect way to mean something other than what is plainly spelled out. The draft is based upon the same sort of reading. Why dont you show me where the constitution actually AUTHORISES CONSCRIPTION.

Either its in there and legal or its not. Congress has the power to raise and maintain an army and is granted all powers necessary and proper to do so. The draft is LEGAL.

So your saying that our founding fathers were too stupid to actually specifically include conscription as a legal means to raise an army? Is this the same way that they forgot to say that the national guard counts as "the people" in the second ammendment?

Now, about slavery.

If two slaves have a baby, the baby is also a slave. If two conscripts have a baby, not only would it not be a conscript, but the mother would be assigned shore duty or discharged.


There are MANY kinds of slavery throught history in this country, many of them do not extend to family, and many of them are of a fixed duration (indentured servitude, is one example).

Slaves can be bought and sold. No U.S. conscript has ever been sold to another country, or purchased from another country.

I guess it depends on how you think about buying and selling. When U.S. troops perform security duties for a foreign sovern nation then they are providing free labor to that country, so I guess those solders are being "rented" rather than sold. Not a really big difference. And as I pointed out we reserve the right to draft foreign nationals who reside in our nations

In this vein a further implication is that potential conscripts can BUY their freedom with a couple thousand dollars of college tuition, those with priviledge can ensure safe state-side assignments. This is something that our government leaders like to do.

Slavery is for life. Conscription is until services are no longer required.

There is NO LIMIT whatsoever on the duration of a term of conscription. You are freed at the behest of your master when you arent usefull any longer and not a moment sooner, just like any other slave.

Besides, a whole lot of conscripts end up serving for the entire duration of their lives, which tends to be rather short. ;)

Rebellious slaves are normally killed, like rabid animals.

Maybe you should tell that to Eddie Slovic.

Conscripts may still be conscientious objectors, just like the volunteers.


What are you talking about? You cant just say "i dont want to fight or get shot" and expect those wishes to be honored. Objector status is awarded based on specific guidlines and the vast majority of draftees do not qualify.

The founding fathers disagreed, and so do I, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

This thread is FIVE PAGES LONG now, and not a single person has been able to show where conscription is authorized or endorsed in actual words. Deciding that the constitution *infers* something without actually saying it is the same sort of mistake made by gun control advocates. Why can't you do this? Show me were the founding fathers actually said conscription is OK.

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2006, 04:02 PM
Even if they changed the Constitution to give government the privilege of forcing people into battle at gunpoint, I still would not comply.

STAGE 2
October 13, 2006, 04:04 PM
Why dont you show me where the constitution actually AUTHORISES CONSCRIPTION.

The same place it allows you to own an AK or an AR or hollow point bullets, or speek freely on the internet or television. In a word it doesn't. No one here would dispute the right to own an ak or enjoy free speech on the internet even though they are not specifically authorized.

More importantly, however the constitution does not specifically prohibit conscription. In a time where many nations were conscripting their armies, its your suggestion that in a document that is a check on governmental power, all of these brilliant men just forgot about preventing conscription... I don't think so. It actually goes the opposite way giving congress the power to raise an army. Given what we know about colonial militias there is little doubt that the framers did not intend to have an army strictly of volunteers.

I have explained it before and ironically every single court in this nation has interpreted it the same way. If you want to throw your lot on the opposide side fine. People reserve the right to be incorrect. Once again, you may not like it, but it is permissible under the constitution.

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2006, 04:09 PM
More importantly, however the constitution does not specifically prohibit conscription.

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.

c_yeager
October 13, 2006, 04:18 PM
More importantly, however the constitution does not specifically prohibit conscription. In a time where many nations were conscripting their armies, its your suggestion that in a document that is a check on governmental power, all of these brilliant men just forgot about preventing conscription...

The purpose of the constitution is not to make a list of what the government cannot do, but to make a list of what they *CAN* do. If the constitution does not specifically allow the federal government to perform an action then it is not allowed to do so, it is left to "the people" and to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This poor tenth ammendment really takes a beating around here.

The same place it allows you to own an AK or an AR or hollow point bullets

AKs and ARs and bullets are ARMS. The right for the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed seems like a pretty clear statement.

or speek freely on the internet or television.

The first ammendment clearly prohibits any restriction of free speech or the press, television and the internet are methods of speech.

The entire basis of your arguments here is that the forefathers didnt think of everything because computers and AK-47s didnt exist when it was written, this argument is deeply flawed in two important ways.

1) Conscription *did* exist when the constitution was written.
2) The constitution automatically defaults to reserving all rights to the people and their respective states when it doesnt specifically address an issue.

Cosmoline
October 13, 2006, 04:19 PM
Of course, the 13th was only possible because of conscription, so I don't think the drafters intended to include conscription in the definition. Clearly, the federal government has the constitutional authority to institute a draft. Those arguments have been raised and addressed ages ago. And I'm not prepared to call former draftees "slaves." The question is what the point of a draft is in this day and age, and whether selective service is being kept on life support for tactical reasons or merely political ones.

#shooter
October 13, 2006, 04:43 PM
I think there should be mandatory two year full-time or four year part-time military service at eighteen years of age for everyone (with medical and mental exceptions). Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.

1.By making military service a requirement it would be less likely the military would be abused because there are more stakeholders.

2.If military action is needed then there is a ready supply of troops.

3.Overtime the population would be familiar with military equipment and tactics thus making the general population better prepared for an invasion.

4.Likewise if there is a coup d'état the population would be prepared to resist.

I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 04:44 PM
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court martial before whom the same shall be assessed, to the marshal of the district, in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies; and also the supervisor of the revenue of the same district, who shall record the said certificate in a book to be kept for that purpose. The said marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent, which costs and manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the state, in which the same shall be, in other cases of distress; and where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the marshal of the district or his deputy may commit such delinquent to gaol, during the term, for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States, may be committed.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the supervisor of the revenue, in the district in which they are collected, within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum, as a compensation for their trouble; and in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any court of the United States, of the district, in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance therefor, to be sued for, prosecuted and recovered, in the name of the supervisor of the district, with interest and costs.

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several districts and deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs, and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer. ;)

APPROVED, May 2, 1792.


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

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 04:46 PM
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lots, to be drawn by them before the Commanding officers of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company or detachment.

IX. And be it further enacted That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense.

X. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.

And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.

XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias.

[Act of February 28, 1795, made small revisions in Sections 2, 4, 5, and 10 of Act of May 2, 1792. The 1795 act was the authority for ruling in Houston v. Moore, 1820. Other revisions were enacted April 18, 1814]

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, [omitted in 1795: "who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war"]: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: [words added in 1795:] and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

Sec. 10. [revised to read:] And be it further enacted, That the act, intitled "Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.

APPROVED, February 28, 1795.

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

Glockfan.45
October 13, 2006, 04:54 PM
I wont read all 5+ pages of this, I dont need to. I am 100% against the draft, or any other form of consciption. No man should be asked to die for what he does not believe in. Would I join up to fight a war in Asia over a test bomb? NO. Would I join up to fight a unjustified war in the Middle East over a supposed bomb? No. Sorry to anyone who did but this is the way I feel. Would I join up if China were invading? You bet. Some things are worth dying for, others are not. What I think is worth the cost of my life someone else may not, and should never be forced to give it for a cause not held true in their heart.

I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.
__________________


Preserve freedom from what? Korea was a threat to our freedom? Vietnam was a threat to our freedom? Iraq was a threat to our freedom? I dont trust my life or the lives of my loved ones to the governments ability to decide when war is needed.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 13, 2006, 04:55 PM
You and I have gone around on this point before. I will maintain that the Spirit of the Consitution on this matter was such that we were not to maintain far-flung garrisons on a continuous basis throughtout the world and promote it through a never-ending series of Executive Orders.

OK, I didn't realize you were arguing that the current situation violated the spirit intended by the Founders. That is a different argument from implying that a specific part of the Constitution (appropriations for army) is being ignored.

You have been open and honest about your position about America's place in global politics and your support of a certain strain of globalism as a result.

Well, I have certainly tried to explain my position; but it is quite obvious you still don't understand. Think of it this way - do you blame the weatherman when he tells you it is going to rain? Do you believe that the weatherman wishes for more rain every time he forecasts it?

Your distaste for globalism is irrelevant; because the overwhelming majority of Americans want a lifestyle that cannot exist without globalism. They might not think of it like that - they probably think of it as things like easy communication, cheap consumer electronics, inexpensive gasoline, low-priced heating oil, etc. As long as the voting majority wants a lifestyle that is dependent on globalism, you'll get more globalism.

So, you can stand there and shake your fist at the sky and get wet or you can start putting up a tent. Your choice.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 04:56 PM
Those who advocate the draft come in two primary groups. First are the Democrats and closet Socialists who want to use the threat of a draft against the administration for political reasons. The next are older men who think the draft is a good way to "toughen up" the slack-jawed youth of today.
Not quite. I wrote down in what conditions and why I would support a draft in an earlier post. Your two reasons ain't it.


Not to pick on you in particular Cosmo, but such an attitude is what perenially leaves us unprepard for the next war

But what possible set of circumstances would lead us to draft ten million men, form them into tight lines, and march them at the enemy with officers at the ready to shoot any shirkers? It's well and good to say "we don't know what the future will bring." But I think we can rule out flying monkeys, Swiss pikemen and Napoleonic style battles.
We went to war with an hegemonic, expansionist, ~facsist, xenophobic asian power over 60 years ago. Despite not being on the mainland of the asian continent, that effort put a premium on infantry. They had to be dug out and killed toe-to-toe, despite our material superiority.

Can you think of any such rising asian power that is xenophobic, rapidly re-arming, industrializing, and sucking up western technology like a crack whore on a crack pipe? When that power decides to implement a 21st-Century "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" and conquers or intimidates our allies (many of which are liberal democracies, nowadays), what will we do? We did not have enough volunteers in WWII to do the job in either Europe or the Pacific, despite that being a "good" war (in rose-shaded, 20/20 retrospect). We will need to draft even the shirkers and make men of them. It can be done and has been done.

No, that is not the dreaded flying, pike-wielding, Corsican monkey menace. But it will require conscription to deal with.

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 04:56 PM
I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.

Thats a pretty oxymoronic statement. Thats like saying "Prove you are a virgin by having sex with me."


Also, don't you think that the "serve the good of the country" is a rather collectivist sentiment? Maybe you would hate it more if it were "for the children"?

Omaha-BeenGlockin
October 13, 2006, 04:59 PM
When the Chinese hoard(or who ever else) comes rolling up our shores you can count on my rifle being behind one of those blades of grass---but until then-- my old-diabetic-arse is staying home.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 05:02 PM
Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.


In a perfect world this would be ideal. Unfortunately, we are not and the
way I have personally seen this played out is that aspiring politicos who
have taken the military route to pad their resume for a future office run
are either kept in safe places like CONUS or packed like fragile eggs in a
deep comfortable bunker in the warzone. These ppl have never been on a
ground convoy let alone actually in condition red for any reason.

COL Hackworth (RIP :( ) often noted the games of the "perfumed princes"
during their military "service." We have a crop of ppl who are in or recently
held public office from the Vietnam era who did what they could to
manipulate their actual military service. I don't see this changing.

The days of Yalies flying planes like they did in WWII are over. This is what
happens when a Republic goes into cardiac arrest. Everyone either
ponies up to their responsibilities for real just causes of defending this nation
rather than advancing personal/family profit or we're going to see a flatline
soon.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 05:14 PM
I would note, again, that libertarianism is at odds with the COTUS and (small-"r") republican government. Many replies here prove that out. Truly, such folks who write such as, "I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp," do not expect to uphold their end of the bargain and ought to be run out of polite American society.

Uh what bargain did I make with society?...

...Why does the weight of the bargain fall solely on men in a certain age group with no means to get out of it? Society has no expectations of women or older people? Sound pretty prejudiced to me.
Did you vote in any election? Did you agree to abide by the results even if your representative did not win? Did you decide NOT to murder the winner if he was not to your taste? Have you exercised the liberty that was paid for with the blood of patriots?

Yes? Then you have, like most of us, enjoyed the blessings of liberty. If folks aren't willing to help preserve them, they have no claim to be looked upon as anything other than free-riders.

Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men. In extremity, we may have to draft a Codger Squadron, but if we still have young men about, they are preferred.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 05:17 PM
When the Chinese hoard(or who ever else) comes rolling up our shores you can count on my rifle being behind one of those blades of grass---but until then-- my old-diabetic-arse is staying home.

Welcome to the State Militia in a Total War in CONUS scenario. In the sticks
where I live, any invader would be advised not to ever underestimate the old
guys with the shotguns --a signficant portion are Vietnam vets and they're
now being replaced by OIF/OEF vets :D

At least our global forays have had that as an indirect benefit. However, it
is that very experience as veterans that a gov't is most afraid of when
it leans toward tyranny. I remember statements from one of the legislators
regarding an AWB (years back --can't remember if it was Federal level or in
CA, but it was pre-94) to the effect that removing AWs would be good for
public safety "because there's vietnam vets who know how to use them"!

The State giveth and taketh away from its population, but weapons are still
the tools of the State's armed forces be they volunteers or obedient
conscripts. :evil:

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 05:25 PM
Ya know, there really is a free market solution to this. If you can't attract enough volunteers, raise pay and benefits to get what you need. It works for private business, why not the military?

Or are all the pro-draft people also anti-free market?
Well, that has worked pretty well since 9-11. It may fall apart, however, in an extended, large-scale conflict...as markets tend to do.

WWII is an example of the market not being sufficient to the task. The gov't was coming out of a depression and had limited funds. It deficit spent hand over fist during the conflict to pay for war materiel. It sold bonds to US citizens to cover the deficit. Paying more to conscripted servicemen would mean more bonds issued...which would be repayed by those servicemen after the war in the way of taxes.

I am doubtful any amount of money would have gotten the requite numbers of men to win the war. You'd end up with worthless bonds & dollars at the end of it all, too, as the bonds were issued and dollars printed to cover both material and "market rates" for volunteers.

Also, complex markets beyond the level of a farmers' markets & black markets require stable conditions and rational laws to exist, for the most part. War is pretty much the opposite of that.

STAGE 2
October 13, 2006, 05:31 PM
The purpose of the constitution is not to make a list of what the government cannot do, but to make a list of what they *CAN* do. If the constitution does not specifically allow the federal government to perform an action then it is not allowed to do so, it is left to "the people" and to the states.

Which isn't any different that what I said. The government has the government has the authority to raise and maintain an army and has all the powers necessary and proper to carry this out. Since you apparently know something that I and every other jurist in the country that has ruled on this issue dont, please explain to me how a nation is going to raise an army if they cant conscript troops. Asking pretty please:rolleyes:



AKs and ARs and bullets are ARMS. The right for the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed seems like a pretty clear statement.


About as clear as the power to raise and maintain an army. As far as I see it, the constitution only grants the power to own muskets since it doesn't say anything about semi auto rifles.



The first ammendment clearly prohibits any restriction of free speech or the press, television and the internet are methods of speech.


Again, says who. Speech is standing on a corner talking. The internet isn't the press and it isn't a person standing on a corner talking. See how ridiculous this is beginning to sound.



The entire basis of your arguments here is that the forefathers didnt think of everything because computers and AK-47s didnt exist when it was written, this argument is deeply flawed in two important ways.

1) Conscription *did* exist when the constitution was written.

Yup and while they addressed the quartering of soldiers you don't think its funny that they didn't bother to address conscription while at the same time giving congress the power to raise an army.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy into that.

Like I said. Argue all you want, but everyone that has ever faced this question in a legal situation, most smarter than both you and I, all agree that the constitution allows conscription.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 05:42 PM
Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men.

I agree with that. I wish more young men would enlist, but instead we
have mothers and grandparents serving in the warzone. I have nothing
against them and was proud to serve with them, but quite frankly our
soldiers need to be young (and preferably unmarried) men. The psychosocial
factors for this I won't get into here, but at a base level it's physical strength
and endurance. Yeah, that's not PC. So what. War is about survival and
the young are usually the strongest and fastest and that's who's
going to SURVIVE. I'm not saying grandpa can't be ruthless, but when I
have a MAJ complaining about needing closer placement to the portajohn
because he hasn't had a BM in four days due to his age and "all this
traveling", let's get real. :scrutiny:

I look back at my own grandpa, who in his early 20s, stood in a line around
the block and volunteered for WWII. He ended up getting his 4 battle stars
and getting enough points for an early out. I am still amazed with that
golden generation.

So the big question then becomes: Why do America's young men today shun
military service? Easy. They don't see any of their own benefitting
from it. Our society, our media, our political establishment are not promoting
the young heroes from this generation. No one is brought forward to INSPIRE
them.

I know we have some Audie Murphy's out there. I've met young people who
have done incredible things in Iraq. Some were also in the 3ID. Other than a
short spot on Lou Dobbs show, you just don't see or hear about them.

Hkmp5sd
October 13, 2006, 06:02 PM
One thing being overlooked is those that both do not volunteer for the military and do not end up getting drafted. If the population of this country reaches the point where insufficient numbers are willing to defend it, then the country no longer deserves to exist. Do you really have the right to force another person, at threat of imprisonment or execution, to be inducted into the military and fight to defend the nation, when you yourself refuse to do so?

Tommygunn
October 13, 2006, 07:29 PM
Quote:
AKs and ARs and bullets are ARMS. The right for the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed seems like a pretty clear statement.

About as clear as the power to raise and maintain an army. As far as I see it, the constitution only grants the power to own muskets since it doesn't say anything about semi auto rifles.

Quote:
The first ammendment clearly prohibits any restriction of free speech or the press, television and the internet are methods of speech.

Again, says who. Speech is standing on a corner talking. The internet isn't the press and it isn't a person standing on a corner talking. See how ridiculous this is beginning to sound.

The constitution doesn't say anything about muskets, either. It says "keep and bear arms." A musket is an arm, as is a Winchester lever rifle, as is an Ar-15, even an M-16.
Speech is the free uncensored expression of idea. And where does it say you have to be "standing in a corner talking?"

Yes, this is becoming ridiculous. And I don't think it's reached it's nadir, either.:p

brerrabbit
October 13, 2006, 07:30 PM
JFRuser

Did you vote in any election? Did you agree to abide by the results even if your representative did not win? Did you decide NOT to murder the winner if he was not to your taste? Have you exercised the liberty that was paid for with the blood of patriots?

How is not murdering some an exercise in freedom? The patriots part gets me. Many of the patriots whose blood was shed would not have been there willingly.

Yes? Then you have, like most of us, enjoyed the blessings of liberty. If folks aren't willing to help preserve them, they have no claim to be looked upon as anything other than free-riders.


Considering the overwhelming majority of Americans are as the freeloaders you describe you do not make a good argument. This is not about volentary service, but about conscription. Conscription is anathema to freedom.

Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men. In extremity, we may have to draft a Codger Squadron, but if we still have young men about, they are preferred.

Then I would have to say that athletic young black men must make much better soldiers than young white men based on white muscle tissue/red tissue percentages? Why do we then not make up our draft solely on the back of the blacks? Because it would be considered very racist.

If all members of society share these freedoms, and those not willing to serve are freeloaders, by your own arguements, We must effectively conscript every breathing person in the US fight a war. Anyone who does not fight is a freeloader.

Now we talk about the freeloaders, most of the people drafted in the last few conflicts were on average 19 years old. What obligation to society did they incur? In most states and by federal law they where not even full adults. They did not even have the full freedoms we prize and yet you deem they had an obligation to serve for it? A 50 year old man has likely incurred a debt to society, moreso a fifty year old woman, but you are saying we must lay the debt on kids?

The primary reason I understand drafting young men, because if you tell them to do something stupid like taking yon hill with the embedded machine guns and mortars, more than likely they will try to do it. They havent learned enough to say "@#$ you sir".

Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.

roo_ster
October 13, 2006, 10:31 PM
Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.
The argument for/against conscription in time of peril is not dependent upon if I wear BDUs or business casual.

The insistence on such criteria, "Men can't comment on abortion," "Unless you wore a uniform you'd best pipe down on military issues," and the like is an unworthy debating tactic used to shut down the opponent. I try not to use such as I'd rather debate the merits.


How is not murdering some an exercise in freedom?
They were all examples of how folks accept the bargain/deal/whatever that comes with representative government. If the opponent wins, I don't stage a coup. If I win, the opponent doesn't try to shoot me down in the street. Yeah, it sounds basic, but is darn rare in human history to be able to transfer power without bloodshed. Needless to say (write?), it is taken for granted here in America.


Then I would have to say that athletic young black men must make much better soldiers than young white men based on white muscle tissue/red tissue percentages? Why do we then not make up our draft solely on the back of the blacks? Because it would be considered very racist.
No, first and foremost, it is absurd. The red/white muscle fiber ratio changes as one travels from west to east across sub-Saharan Africa. In the west, more white fiber & more/better sprinters. In the east, more red fiber & more/better distance runners.

The transatlantic slave trade brought mostly west Africans to the states. But, even if we were to place white muscle fiber on a pedestal as the be-all & end-all of warriordom, our black population is only partly African. In places where folks really care about such things (S Africa, etc) , American blacks would be classifed as "colored," not black because of the large white, indian, and other influences...not "black." No telling how those other strians would effect the overall red/white ratio.

Anyway, red/white muscle fiber ratios are not why young men make better warriors. One of the main reasons is that they don't break nearly as much as women of any age or older men.

Considering the overwhelming majority of Americans are as the freeloaders you describe you do not make a good argument. This is not about volentary service, but about conscription. Conscription is anathema to freedom.
So what? We have no need for a draft at the moment. If the Chicoms cast their eyes on Taiwann, Japan, & S Korea, the circumstances likely will. Then, salty NCOs will do what they have done for millenia: make warriors out of young men.

Conscription may be the only thing that will preserve freedom, in case of national crisis. Or do you think the USA would be free-er today if we had not resorted to conscription in WW2 and let the Japanese maintain hegemony of east Asia and allowed Germany to control Europe from the English Channel to the Urals? With the UK comeing to a separate peace and the US unable to hold on to Midway & likely Hawaii? I'm thinking that the world and the USA would be poorer and much less free.

brerrabbit
October 13, 2006, 11:02 PM
The argument for/against conscription in time of peril is not dependent upon if I wear BDUs or business casual.

The insistence on such criteria, "Men can't comment on abortion," "Unless you wore a uniform you'd best pipe down on military issues," and the like is an unworthy debating tactic used to shut down the opponent. I try not to use such as I'd rather debate the merits.




Only a woman can have a baby, so mens beliefs in birth control do not carry the same weight as theirs. Pretty much anyone can sign up in the military short of handicaps that they cannot hide or mental illness.

But at a fundamental level, very fundamental, vets see it quite often, non vets arguing military matters. The primary reason I asked was whether or not I consider you worth my time. If you are a non-vet, arguing for the draft, as a vet,I really do not consider your opinion relevent.

If you are a vet, I might actually ponder what you say a bit.


Your basic argument for the whole thread is that the draft is constitutional and is based in the constitution. Your argument state that it is constitutional based on the ability to raise an army. Yet the weight of the service is often mandatory, but curiously is not mentioned in the constitution. I feel that the founding fathers when drafting the constitution would have mentioned in the document the ability of the government to make people forcibly serve their country.

It would be much like rounding up people at gunpoint to vote or putting them in jail for failing to vote. The constitution mentions voting for offices, but does not mention forcing them to vote under pain of law.

You state that there is an obligation to fight otherwise you are a freeloader, but again, the weight of fighting falls on a small percentage of the population while the rest are not considered freeloaders.

As far as WWII induction, there were quite enough people volunteering to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor. Germany never attacked us, and in all likelihood would have fallen to the USSR eventually. In all likelihood, the only difference if we had never fought WWII against the germans would have been the face of western europe, and quite likely a faster defeat of the nips.

Zrex
October 13, 2006, 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by brerrabbit
Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.

While jfruser and I are polar opposites on this issue, his opinion is valid regardless of his prior military status. That said, I believe jfruser wore a Black Beret back when it meant something.

Cosmoline
October 13, 2006, 11:49 PM
Can you think of any such rising asian power that is xenophobic, rapidly re-arming, industrializing, and sucking up western technology like a crack whore on a crack pipe? When that power decides to implement a 21st-Century "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" and conquers or intimidates our allies (many of which are liberal democracies, nowadays), what will we do?

So we need to have the draft to counter China's military threat. That's pretty weird, since if we really wanted to deal with that threat we'd just shut down their imports. The only thing China might invade is Taiwan, and a draft isn't going to help there. You can't draft ready made fighter pilots.

As far as the Japanese analogy, the Pacific battles were intense but called for the opposite of a conscript army. These battles, even more than the battles of Europe, called for elite troops trained and motivated. For example, the first wave of Army troops called up to man the posts up here suffered from so much poor morale and illness they were all but declared combat ineffective. The 7th ID had to be pulled off training in California to push the Japanese off our soil. Warm bodies forced into uniform DO NOT GET THE JOB DONE. If you don't have motivated troops you don't have a prayer, esp. these days. The problems with a conscript military have gotten worse these days, when even low level grunts are expected to work with high tech equipment.

Folks, we have changed. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. We are no longer a nation that can accept a mass conscription. We're far too cynical and far too estranged from government. I know the military really needs skilled people, esp. those skilled in computer science and engineering. But conscription is a dangerous game when you're dealing with these people. Just imagine the damage a conscripted geek could do if forced out of a six figure job into a specialist's position. We're not talking about urinating in the DI's boots. And what are you going to do to stop it? Have some regular army folks standing behind him with pistols? They won't even know what's happening.

I think there should be mandatory two year full-time or four year part-time military service at eighteen years of age for everyone (with medical and mental exceptions). Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.

How is that working to preserve freedom? Two year conscription is SOP in all socialist and communist nations on the planet, and has been for a century. It's a way of ensuring a docile population and reminding everyone of their place BENEATH the power of the state. It gets them used to looking to the state for guidance and support. That's not "supporting freedom," that's learning to be a serf.

Eleven Mike
October 14, 2006, 08:48 AM
Only a woman can have a baby, so mens beliefs in birth control do not carry the same weight as theirs. 100% wrong. The ability to have a baby does not contribute to moral or political wisdom.

Or, we can limit the draft conversation to those who do not want to be drafted.

Thin Black Line
October 14, 2006, 09:22 AM
Think of it this way - do you blame the weatherman when he tells you it is going to rain? Do you believe that the weatherman wishes for more rain every time he forecasts it?

There's a difference between forecasting it vs leaving the windows open
and not fixing all the holes in the roof.


Your distaste for globalism is irrelevant; because the overwhelming majority of Americans want a lifestyle that cannot exist without globalism. They might not think of it like that - they probably think of it as things like easy communication, cheap consumer electronics, inexpensive gasoline, low-priced heating oil, etc. As long as the voting majority wants a lifestyle that is dependent on globalism, you'll get more globalism.


Yes, thanks for making my point of the Roman Bread and Circus lifestyle and
culture that this country is now embracing like a drunkard with a cheap
harlot. This is the same kind of re-emerging culture that demands cheap
goods/resources and wants someone else to ensure that they get it.
Hence, the lack of volunteers for the military and the wide resistance
to a draft no matter the cause --just or not.

Before you poo-poo my personal distaste for globalism as "irrelevant" you
might want to consider how many soldiers have a similar distaste.
After all, we are the ones who put the gun in gunboat diplomacy and
when we tire of going out again and again and there is no one who will
step up to replace us, what do you think that will do to the strength of
the USD$ overseas?

The brits are already getting deep into this kind of culture which explains
some of General Dannatt's recent comments:

* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."


Emphasis mine. Many recently retired US generals have likewise warned
of "breaking the Army" too.

Since this is a conscription thread, this is my opinion as to why conscription
will be inevitable if the people living within the "borders" of this former
Republic want to continue this lifestyle. You give me no new illumination
that my opinion on globalism is irrelevant to them as it is obvious.

However, you and the rest of the people lounging around on the divan
eating grapes had better heed my opinion on how it will play out for the
armed forces, ie, some of you will have to get off your butts and actually
put your lives on the line if you expect this hedonistic party to
continue and your supply of cheap grapes to go uninterrupted.

There are plenty of neo-cons who are thanking you for your loyal global
cheerleading. Now it's time to put down your grapes, pick up a rifle and
eat some sand. This superpower still prefers volunteers rather than
conscripts.....today at least......personally, I can no longer stomach the
hypocrisy.

longeyes
October 14, 2006, 11:26 AM
The trouble with the glories of globalism is that it is a short-term binge. This will be the last generation of Americans to enjoy, without penalty, the misbegotten policies we have permitted to become economic gospel.

I have long wondered, frankly, how long the covenant between our military and the hedonistic hordes would hold. A few Spartans, one hell of a lot of Sybarites. I sense a Rubicon crossing up ahead, that's all I'll say about that.

deadin
October 14, 2006, 12:24 PM
I guess it’s time to rejoin the fray.
First off, my posting of the Twin Towers picture was merely meant to emphasize the point that just being half way around the world does NOT insulate us from attack by a determined enemy (even those of limited capabilities.) Some of you got this, others just knee-jerked to the “Saddam didn’t do it” mantra. In no way was I either condemning nor endorsing Iraq.

Now to “conscription” (I like the term “conscription” instead of “draft”. It sounds so much more nasty and unfair.) I think that Thin Black Line has summed it up quite well. I will add that the old saying “TANSTAAFL” applies here. (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Somebody’s got to pay for our lifestyle and it really irritates me that some seem to think it should be someone other then them.

For those that seem to want the US to “pull in its horns” and go into an isolationist mode, stand by. I’m getting the sickening feeling (if you care to believe the current “polls”) that we may be about to get a bilssninny Congress. I hope everyone is prepared for everything that will go with this.

Then there are the respondents that are saying they will only take up arms when the “BG’s” are knocking at the door and have already invaded. Trust me, your “Super-Pooper” .357 CCW and your hunting rifle aren’t going to cut it when the RPG’s are coming through the windows and APC’s are knocking down the front door. (Red Dawn non-withstanding.)
What is needed is an army trained in combat arms. (And training takes time and investment) Where is this to come from if everyone is unwilling to serve? (or may be willing, but only if they are allowed to decide what they support at the time.) (You know, they’ve only invaded California, and I’ve never cared for that State, so the H*** with them.) (Of course, if we lost California, the supply of grapes (as mentioned by TBL) will dry up and maybe this would get some off of their divans and into the fight.)
I also find it interesting that, after the shame of the way our country treated the military of ‘Nam, there has been this big “I support the Military” movement. Unfortunately, it’s beginning to take on the smell of hypocrisy.
It’s becoming more and more “words only” and no “put your money where you mouth is”.

The answer to all of this? A volunteer, professional military is a great idea, but is it feasible? We are seeing that even professionals burn out without relief. They can’t “stay on the line” constantly and are decimated by casualties. (after all, it is combat and people will get killed and injured).
They need relief and replacement. Where are these to come from? Some have already made it known that they wouldn’t serve at any price, so just “paying” more doesn’t seem to be the answer. (And for those that would serve “if paid enough”, I tend to think of them as self-centered, money-grubbing mercenaries. Not exactly who I would want to depend on in combat. They’ve already shown that they can be “bought” for the right price.)
If we can’t or won’t support a volunteer, professional military, we either draft or pull back into an isolationist posture and take whatever may come from this. (Read TBL’s predictions. I think there is a lot of truth there.)

JShirley
October 14, 2006, 12:44 PM
We will need to draft even the shirkers and make men of them. It can be done and has been done.


I decry such sexism.

America has always, since inception, been part of "the global economy". Jefferson restricted this somewhat during his term, but it didn't turn out well.

I suppose each president- and every American- has to decide whether the moral quality of a foreign head of state is reason enough to attack that state. It is impossible for the US to not be engaged worldwide, but involvement may not be the same as military force.

Texas48
October 14, 2006, 01:15 PM
The FREE in FREEDOM describes the fruits of sacrifice-not the costs to obtain, or protect them.

JShirley
October 14, 2006, 01:17 PM
I'm not sure how that applies to whether the US has a conscripted or volunteer force.

Personally, I find the draft morally repugnant.

J

xd9fan
October 14, 2006, 01:21 PM
Moreover, the day and age when the feds represented the people, and deserved recognition as the voice of the people, is long gone. They are only barely representative. The militias, in contrast, are traditionally controlled on a state by state basis as a defensive force to resist invasion. The last time they were used on a large scale was in fact to fight off an invasion--by the federal government.


Cosmoline you hit the nail on the head for me.

IMHO:

The Federal Govt is to big. Its self-aware and looks out for itself rather than "the will of the people". Its just to big and distant.

The Federal Govt uses and abuses its standing military. Look at the past 50 years and tell me different. They now tap into the State National Guards for conflicts and wars half way around the world. DOES ANYBODY SEE THE DISCONNECT HERE????

State Citizen Militas would have a very hard time doing that.

Our Country's past on issues was local, local , local. Better representation, better anwsers to local problems and believe me men will fight like hell to protect their community.

BUT NOW Current American Politics/Govt has this Global view and the disconect from this country's past grows as the Federal Govt's need to have a global army to "protect" the Federal Govt's "interests" increases. In the last 50 years we see that it is just not working.

So now we have nationalist "conservatives" (ie neocons) on this broad tell everyone that if your not for the draft you dont believe in freedom. Please inform me how the military half way around the world is protecting MY freedom. Is that not MY responsibility? Is my freedom directly tied to a secure Iraq?? Why didnt the Founding Fathers mention this? I thought the relationship was between God, me and MY govt. Troops in Iraq (or in any country around the world) protecting MY freedom is Bull. They are protecting the Federal Govt's interests. Period.

I will fight (and would want my 3 boys to fight) for our States (North Dakota and Minnesota) and our communities bacause it directly effects me and others around me.

But Federal Govt/administration conflicts half way arould the world, with no direct threat.....sorry......disconnect!!

The Politics of fear/paranoid lines from the neocons just dont work for me. "what if this" What if that" has about as much meaning as the wacko/freaky left on Global warming.....sorry....disconnect....


The Founding Fathers did not believe that fixing every country in the world would make Liberty here at home....more attainable/possible. Given World History.....Neocons, tell how this will work. Tell me how every country on the planet effects MY relationship with MY Govt?????

telomerase
October 14, 2006, 01:34 PM
The Federal Govt uses and abuses its standing military. Look at the past 50 years and tell me different. They now tap into the State National Guards for conflicts and wars half way around the world.

Good point... in the War of 1812, the Connecticut militia refused to invade Canada. Now American "National Guard" troops will go anywhere and do anything, no matter how ludicrous the excuse.

STAGE 2
October 14, 2006, 01:52 PM
Does anyone notice at all of these arguments, while valid, have nothing to do with conscription. They have to do with fixing the federal government and altering our foreign policy.

xd9fan
October 14, 2006, 01:56 PM
Does anyone notice at all of these arguments, while valid, have nothing to do with conscription. They have to do with fixing the federal government and altering our foreign policy.

Disaggree They are valid because nowadays (in the last 50 years) the talk of Conscription IS dirctly related to Foreign policy NOT real domestic protection. So which Foreign policy do you want to die for?

If you need proof that conscription is a mostly a foreign policy issue....Look at what we are NOT doing with our Southern Border. There you Not only have barbarians at the gate THEY ARE ARE WALKING IN!!!!

We have a clear domestic protection problem....and where is the response from the Federal Govt
***** a dog barks in the distants****
nothing.

oh yeah a few troops pre-election time. wow.

Thin Black Line
October 14, 2006, 02:58 PM
I'm not going to get into the morals of the fedgov or its leaders. When it
comes to conscription, my point would still be that an involved active
citizenry reduces the need to conscript through A) providing plenty of
young well-qualified volunteers for just causes and B)holding its
government more accountable --and that means doing more than pulling the
lever on election day and getting your "I Voted" sticker like a pellet at the
end of a rat maze.

We tend to idealise America's greatest generation in WWII, but they also
had their share of shirkers and free-loaders. I'm not saying that people
should be shamed for not joining the military, far from it. But people really
have to ask themselves "What have I done for freedom?" Casting a vote,
owning a large gun collection, and paying NRA dues doesn't do it. Refusing
to pay federal income tax doesn't do it. I'm not saying I have a perfect
solution, but here's one way to know: If you see a stranger suffering from
an iniquity while walking around in your daily life, do you do something
about it, or walk by wondering who else is going to take care of it? Do you
even notice? Be honest with yourself.

This is what I'm getting at when it comes to service and protecting freedom.
The generals who are coming forward and saying that 1% of this nation's
population can't continue carrying the weight are saying this for a reason.
Do you know how hard it is for can-do people to admit they've reached the
end of their rope? They're going to suffer in silence as they and their families
break down.

If you want to maintain a Romanesque empire where cheap goods float in
with little effort from the public, more of that public will have to fight for
that --literally. If you want a return to a more isolated Republic, you have
to get involved in public policy. More importantly, you have to be willing to
make sacrifices in your standard of living. You will have to pay more for
things, drive less, conserve just about everything, and not expect 48" plasma
screens in every room bought on credit cards. But, you know what? Ask
yourself what the Founding Fathers would have thought of that lifestyle!

This is going to require some tough choices. It's either Empire/Superpower or
a partial return to the Republic we once had --and we all know how Rome
turned out. However, that's not to say that Republics haven't had their
break-ups either. Can what we once have be saved? Do you wish it? Will
you work for it?

Thin Black Line
October 14, 2006, 03:04 PM
Some pics that are relevant to the public and their effort in wartime.

xd9fan
October 14, 2006, 03:12 PM
totally agree with your first paragragh Thin Black Line.

But I dont think getting back to basics..a Republic means we become....isolated. Far from it. Let the free market go.
Maybe you mean isolated as far as military presence around the world. If thats the case I dont think isolated is the right term. (some use this term knowlingly to mislead in a soundbite debate)
I dont know where the term isolated even fits. This country would still be trading and competing in the world market.

I think other countries need to start protecting themselves rather than us having 800 plus military bases around the world ready and loaded for hell. At our expense.....(lives lost and money lost)

We would never let any foreign country have multiple large loaded and heavily trooped military bases on our soil. Ever.

If a voluntary group/force wanted to help a foreign country militarily then go for it. No conscription needed. But lets keep the boys home for real homeland security rather than this Romanlike world control chess game. Again, given the last 50 years....its not working.

jerkyman45
October 14, 2006, 03:30 PM
I like it and I do support his sentiments. He said that only in times of dire need will we have a need for conscription, I hope that time never comes, but like we all know, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Soybomb
October 14, 2006, 04:32 PM
Seems like alot of hot air to me. End the selective service program to save a few million each year. Who wants to fight with soldiers that don't want to be there? Is individual manpower even an issue anymore with current warfare? Cannon fodder isn't needed anymore.

Art Eatman
October 14, 2006, 05:50 PM
Seven pages with too much commentary about government and not enough about the ideas pro and con of having a draft.

Let's give it a rest for now. Start again in a while, after giving it all some thought...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "When Called: Conscription" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!