When Called: Conscription
- Thread starter roo_ster
- Start date
- Status
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
jfruser
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.
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
Member
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
Thin Black Line said:
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
Member
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.
Eleven Mike
Member
Yeah, I think you can be skeptical about how the WOT is being fought. But that something has to be done seems obvious.
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.
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
member
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)
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
Moderator Emeritus
To Draft Or Not To Draft
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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?
Or are all the pro-draft people also anti-free market?
Thin Black Line
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Maybe you should tell that to Eddie Slovic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This poor tenth ammendment really takes a beating around here.
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.
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
Member
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.
- Status
