Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service

[Kaylee]

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

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


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

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

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


-K

 

[Raoul Duke]

Well, this topic has definite non draft leanings, eh? Well, I'm just out of the range of the normal draft, but well within the numbers if the SHTF.

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

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

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


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

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Pusillanimy

There are some things that I think are truly cowardly and despicable. Putting kids in harm's way to score political points is one of them.

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

- pdmoderator

 

[CyberGOP]

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

 

[longeyes]

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

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

 

[Boudicca]

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

 

[Waitone]

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

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

 

[cookhj]

Boudicca, congrats on your son becoming a Marine. i hope it comforts you that he is with the finest fighting force in the world.


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

 

[longeyes]

Waitone,

You're right: the State is not God.

But neither is the self.

 

[Dienekes]

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

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

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

 

[duncan]

Even if you're quoting someone else, the use of racial slurs and slang is inappropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[duncan]

And if you are going to quote someone using offensive words, it's a good course of action to actually KNOW exactly what they said.

 

[Preacherman]

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

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

On with the discussion...

 

[Pendragon]

I think it is important to keep a certain dynamic between the citizenry, the military and the politicians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conscription is slavery plain and simple.

 

[striker3]

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

 

[ArmsAkimber]

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

"Arbeit macht Frei"

:banghead:

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

 

[Derek Zeanah]

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

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

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

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

 

[longeyes]

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

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

 

[Viking6]

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

 

[Derek Zeanah]

If you don't feel you want to volunteer it must be that you don't think the Government represents you and yours. Then volunteer to change that.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that if the people view the cause as just then you won't lack for volunteers (WWI, WWII), but if the cause is seen as questionable then there's no way you can run the war with volunteers (think Vietnam).

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

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

 

[ArmsAkimber]

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

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

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

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

 

[longeyes]

ArmsAkimber,

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

 

[ArmsAkimber]

longeyes,

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

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

 

[Redlg155]

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

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

Good Shooting
RED

 

[Pendragon]

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

Pragmatism is the mortal enemy of freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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