When Called: Conscription

[JShirley]

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]

The FREE in FREEDOM describes the fruits of sacrifice-not the costs to obtain, or protect them.

 

[JShirley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

WWII and the Public

Some pics that are relevant to the public and their effort in wartime.

 

[xd9fan]

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]

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]

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]

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