I am in favor of a permanent draft

[proud2BlibKansan]

Just think, if ALL kids can be drafted at 18 (or maybe 21?), our elected reps just might think twice before voting to use military force. If they had to worry about their own kids being sent off to war, they would be less likely to approve it unless there really was no other choice. And in my lifetime, there have ALWAYS been other choices.

I also think kids should be able to serve as community volunteers if they don't want to go into the military.

Draft them all. Yes, you can start with my 2.

I do believe this is what Rangle had in mind.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. I've given up on this topic, so...

:popcorn: for me

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I just had a late lunch

but enjoy your popcorn. :)

[uppityperson]

3. IF there were a draft, need to strictly limit number of yrs

They can do more if they want, but, say, 2 yrs and your time is done with NO involuntary exceptions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Works for me

No deferments for college either.

[liberal N proud]

4. And how do you propose paying for all these 18 - 21 year olds?

Your reason for the permanent draft has one huge flaw. It will never prevent the elite from sending the middle class and poor to fight the wars they wage. The elite will always find ways to keep their kids out of the battle.

It just will not stop them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. How much are we spending in Iraq?

Sorry I don't see the same flaw you do. We could sure structure it to prevent the wealthy getting around military service.

[liberal N proud]

15. The wealthy, who are in power are going to pass laws to force their children into the military...

Yeah RIIIIIIIGHHT.

[SammyWinstonJack]

127. Why is this so hard to understand, for some here? The wealthy and powerful will never

give their children to military service, unless for political gain and even then, they will get preferential treatment(GW)! No more wars and no draft!

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Let's guess that there are 10,000,000 total.

Shall I continue?

Cost/day at $100/person: $1,000,000,000.
Cost/year: $365,000,000,000.

Perhaps then it will not be universal service?

[springhill]

171. There is one big flaw..........

And that is that our kids will continue to be sent to die for illegal and immoral wars. The draft will not stop them. And I will be damned if my son will be a part of that. Your idea, frankly, scares the shit out of me as a mother of a 15-year old son.

War changes your kids. They will never be the same again. And frankly, I don't want my son killing anyone.

[rocktivity]

5. The kids of the rich and the reps would gobble up the "community volunteer" jobs

the poorer kids would end up in the military, the president would have an endless stream of cannon fodder (which would make it EASIER to pick fights with other countries and harder to pull out)--and we'd be right back where we started.

:headbang:
rocknation

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Not if we restricted it and refused to allow anyone to take advantage

[Hippo_Tron]

24. I said I'd stay out, but...

Who exactly is going to be enforcing the law? You can write all the laws you want, the President's kids will still not wind up in a combat zone, especially considering that the President is commander-in-chief.

And if he was challenged legally, they would be able to argue that sending his kids to a combat zone would compromise his ability to be commander-in-chief should they be taken hostage.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. Then maybe the twins would be REALLY teaching in the ghetto

or perhaps volunteering in a high poverty area somewhere. They for sure wouldn't be vacationing in South America right now. LOL

[mike_c]

6. just the opposite would happen, just like Vietnam....

With lots of cheap cannon fodder, you can just throw soldiers in wherever you have a political point to make. Otherwise, the equation simply substitutes human lives for other variables-- in particular, once you have "invested" a few thousand, it becomes harder and harder to justify disengagement, even from lost causes. The end result is that tens of thousands are sacrificed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. There were student deferments then

That is what caused so many lower income kids to be drafted. They couldn't afford college. My plan is for no deferments.

[mike_c]

16. my point stands-- I didn't mean that this IS Vietnam, only...

...that a draft would ensure a steady supply of something even cheaper than bullets-- soldiers. When has concern for human life EVER prevented politicians from treating the pawns as expendable units? The easier the supply, the more readily they go to war-- and the more cheaply they throw them away, regardless of the source.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. I think they would proceed more carefully if their own kids could go to war

I grew up in a wealthy community. My family wasn't wealthy, we just had a house in a great location - bordering on the wealthiest suburb in the area. And my dad taught at the city's most exclusive private school so we all got to go there tuition free. Anyway, I went to school with the rich. I know how they think. Not ONE kid I went to school with got drafted - not one.

No girls in my school got pregnant either but that is a whole nuther thread. LOL

The rich will try to protect their own, just like anyone else would do. Make their kids eligible for the draft and war will be just a memory.

[BlackVelvet04]

79. Lots of people aren't willing to risk their lives on what YOU

naively believe. If you think you can be sure the rich won't find a way to keep their kids out of a draft you are truly deluded.

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Then aren't you lucky I am not in Congress?

:)

[MichiganVote]

186. Actually proud, I'm surprised you don't endorse the more direct route

and that is that white, fat, self-absorbed, altogether wholly satisfied members of Congress be drafted in any conflict they start. Screw the idea of their kids. Do you have any idea how much we would save in pensions and health care for these bozo's?

No possibility of deferments, no need for community service as they've already done it and done it badly, and no need for a backdoor draft---they'll surely get themselves shot all to hell in no time.

Yup, draft politicians, that's the only way to go.

[MADem]

36. It wasn't just 'lower income' kids either. It was kids who were poor test takers, or lousy students

You had to get IN to a college to get a deferment. Kids without the tuition money, and/or without the good grades and test scores were out of luck. If you had crappy grades, plenty of cash and a legacy daddy, though, you were golden.

[BlackVelvet04]

80. Are you a lawmaker?

If not, your plan doesn't mean jack shit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. And of course I am not entitled to have a discussion

on a DISCUSSION board, either, then am I? :sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

9. As long as it's voluntary, it's fine with me.

Oh you meant conscription? Press gangs? Involuntary servitude? In a Democracy? In peacetime? Have you lost your mind? You want to trust our leaders to not fuck up? Again?

And you don't get to decide for your kids, they get to decide for themselves.

[spoony]

117. Yes! Thank you.

I honestly can't believe the number of people who want a fucking DRAFT :wow:

[lindisfarne]

10. Back your opinion up with action. Enlist yourself. Get your kids and/or grandkids to enlist. Only

after you do that can you even think about calling for others' children to be drafted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. My kids are already doing community service

:)

[lindisfarne]

23. Community service *ISN'T* enlisting in the military. Risk your kids lives -

and your own. The National Guard is accepting older and older enlistees.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. My proposal includes community service

Did you read my OP?

[lindisfarne]

37. Yes. But you also say "If they had to worry about their own kids being sent off to war, they would

be less likely to approve it unless there really was no other choice. "

Your logic is faulty. Either the congresspeople *have* to worry about their own kids being sent off to war (thus, community service *isn't* an out), or community service *is* an out, in which case, congresspeople *don't* have to worry about their own kids being sent off to war.

Which is it??
A draft will improve nothing.

[Zhade]

136. My goodness - you just ANNIHILATED that argument. Well-said!

This deserves notice:

Either the congresspeople *have* to worry about their own kids being sent off to war (thus, community service *isn't* an out), or community service *is* an out, in which case, congresspeople *don't* have to worry about their own kids being sent off to war.

This can't be repeated enough. You've totally blown that argument out of the water, and proved why a draft would never NOT favor the rich as some naively think.

Again, well-said. I'm going to remember this one!

[Exiled in America]

175. OWNED. (nt)

[originalpckelly]

14. It's very easy to send people to die, when you aren't one of them...

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. My point is that Congress will be far less likely to send kids off to die

if their own kids were going.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. And there is no factual basis for your belief.

Besides that it is a great point.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

41. Didn't we try that in Vietnam?

Can we start learning from history now? The children of the elite NEVER serve.

[TahitiNut]

48. The US got out of Viet Nam less than three years after the draft was made more equitable.

Until 1970, the deferment loopholes available to the affluent were almost uncountable. When the deferments were eliminated and the lottery was re-instituted (it was the old way), we exited in less than three years. The largest troop reductions by far were made in that first year. (Now, the draft never included women, so that's 50% who weren't at risk - so 'equitable' is a real stretch.)

How long have we been in Iraq? How long have we been in Afghanistan? Does anyon really and truly believe we won't be there for at least two more years?
(I got a bridge to sell you.) :eyes:

[originalpckelly]

51. How many people died in those three years?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

53. None in 1973.

# 1970 - 4,221
# 1971 - 1,381
# 1972 - 300


Commpared to 1969 when 9,414 were killed. the number in the next THREE years was a drastic reduction.

Next stupid question? :eyes:

[originalpckelly]

63. Yes, because 7,000 people isn't a large number.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

67. More than 9,000 were killed just on the beaches at Normandy.

Try developing some perspective.

True - one life wasted is a tragedy.
How about this one ... ?



Emily J.T. Perez, a determined 23-year-old from Prince George's County, rose to the top of her high school class and then became the first minority female command sergeant in the history of the U.S. Military Academy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601765.html

[originalpckelly]

69. I was actually mocking you...

because 7,000 people died after the draft became more "democratic." In other words, I was trying to get across the idea of not using the lives of real people to play politics.

[TahitiNut]

73. Actually, less than 6,000 battle deaths occurred in 1970 and afterwards.

There's no reason to "kill" 1,000 more than actually died. Inflating the numbers (hyperbole) is what I'd call "using the lives of real people to play politics."

The point remains that there were lives NOT lost partly due to the impact of the draft revisions - revisions that were a 'wake up call' to some people otherwise disengaged. It's not arguable that such changes didn't exist in a vacuum and that the draft changes were forced in order to throw a 'bone' to the protesters. A huge part of the opposition in those days WAS the "Fortunate Son" syndrome. I know that because I was part of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. It wasn't the draft revisions, they weren't drafting anyone.

Go look at the drop off in draft numbers from 70 - 73. The casualties dropped because we took our troops out of the fight.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. My husband was drafted in 70

He was one of only 2 in his boot camp class who did NOT go to Vietnam.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. I was less than clear.

70, if I recall correctly was the last year that a large number of kids were taken. By 73 it was down to something like 2 men. But tahitinut has this odd theory that it was the lottery reform, and not the fact that we took our troops out of the fight, that ended the war. It is that theory that I find astounding in its mendacity.

Somewhere between 67-69 the draft and the army of draftees broke. Exactly when that happened is not clear. The army is pretty clear about the fact that the army broke, and President Carter thought he was pardoning something on the order of 500,000 folks for violating the selective service laws, but it is not as if this is official history. Resistance inside and outside the military, and the fact that the vietnamese had fought us into a war of attrition stalemate, made it impossible to continue to fight that war and forced Nixon into the face saving vietnamization policy and the subsequent official defeat in '75.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. The draft collapsed.

You have misconstrued a symptom of the collapse of the draft - its last ditch reform by Nixon - for the reason why the war ended.

Resistence both inside the military and within the draft age civilian population broke the army. They could not continue the war. Search and destroy had become search and avoid. The army they put on the field was disfunctional and they were not having much luck with getting replacments and the replacements they were getting were even more disfunctional than the ones already there. Us yutes were not working out well as cannon fodder.

[TahitiNut]

57. "search and avoid" was the practice well before then ...

... even by RA troops. That's not unusual at all during warfare.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Oh please.

Google "draft vietnam morale" or any similar construct. Are you really going to make the claim that there was not a major crackup in our draftee army during the Vietnam war?

[TahitiNut]

85. I don't know where you've been, but it wasn't near where I was.

The 'morale' issue was predominantly the "Fortunate Son" syndrome ... together with the cluster-fuck of the political 'leadership.' Only the militarist right-wing spouted the bullshit about the breakdown of the "conscript Army." It's nonsense ... toxic nonsense.

Did overall Army morale drop post-1970? Yes. It sure didn't help to come "home" and carry the stigma of a leper, either. It wasn't just draftees and it wasn't "conscript Army" - it was everyone in the in-country military and it was "don't be the last to die for an abandoned mission." If anything, it was the 'career' military who got the most negative - racism ran more rampant to the point that "RA" became the abbreviation for "RAcist" rather than "Regular Army." (Believe me, not one 'draftee' in my company used the term 'gook' or 'slope' ... but the RA guys sure did, led by 1/3rd of the NCOs.)

In my involvement with VN vets since, that's been the consistent viewpoint.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. Wrong about nearly everything.

"The US got out of Viet Nam less than three years after the draft was made more equitable." Implying that it was draft reform that got us out, part of your overall thesis that a draft would prevent war.

"Did overall Army morale drop post-1970? Yes. " The conscript army broke sometime between 67 and 69. By 70 it was beyond broke.

"It sure didn't help to come "home" and carry the stigma of a leper, either." Hmmm.. let me guess us antiwar commie bastards were spitting on soldiers? That pack of lies?

[TahitiNut]

105. Yes, you are wrong about nearly everything you've posted.

I was drafted in 1968 and spent 1969 in Nam. There was absolutely no evidence that the "conscript army broke" ... none. Pot? Ubetcha. But it was far from universal and not anything like portrayed. Lots of kvetching? Yes ... and WW2 saw the same thing. It's the perpetual right of soldiers to complain. About the food, about the Mickey Mouse, about the asshole officers, about damned near everything .. it's been going on for thousands of years. Read Ernie Pyle.

In February 1969 we were attacked by an augmented battalion of NVA along our southern perimeter where I was stationed. We repelled them and sustained very few casualties. I know of no KIAs on our side. A Medal of Honor was awarded in that action. Only three sappers got through and were rounded up quite quickly. The men on that line with me were mostly "conscripts" and there was absolutely nothing "broken" about us.

You say it's "part of your overall thesis that a draft would prevent war." I don't believe that a draft is any guarantee against war. I've repeatedly cited the fact that over 60% of those who served in WW2 were draftees. The difference? The vast majority agreed with entering WW2 - but by NO MEANS everyone. That does not mean the 'antiwar' fascists (e.g. the Henry Fords and Prescott Bush's) had some 'right' to avoid the draft. I claim two things:
(1) An equitable draft lessens public tolerance for an administration using our military to 'enforce' global corporate colonialism. When it's only "them" serving, the public treats it like no more than a reality TV show and its "popularity" is virtually identical to a Nielsen rating.
(2) We the People, to the degree we value our democracy (Constitutional republic with People as sovereign), have a moral and ethical obligation to equitably share the risks as well as the rewards of our own governance, including our failures to control our own governance.

I DO NOT condone either the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan or the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I regard the political decision to invade and occupy those countries as Crimes Against Peace, violations both of our international treaties and our Constitution. That does NOT mean that every soldier is a war criminal. No way. No how.


You say "That pack of lies?" Well, I have no idea whether the guy who spat at me was an "antiwar commie bastard" or not. I do know I was spat at. You may want to stick your head up your ass and deny it, but it happened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. On your last point

I suspect, for I have seen it recently with a Iraq Vet, that it was one who today woudl be a keyboard commando...

Lets just say the vet was shocked when I even threatened to press assault charges on the vet by the keyboard commando... the cop was also fairly impressed

Oh and as to the preferred sons, the syndrome is once again among us... shh, don't tell anybody but there is quite a bit of resentmnet building among tropps coming back to a country who does not know its at war and worst, does not give a shit 'bout it.

[TahitiNut]

146. Well, it was mid-November in 1969 at SFO

I was heading out the concourse and they (3-4) were coming in the opposite direction. They were late teens or (more likely) early twentys ... college age if not actually students. Beyond that, there's no way of telling anything about their politics or situation, really. Strutting and cocky. Today's "keyboard kommandos" would fit.

[originalpckelly]

42. Well of course, that idea make complete sense, after all it is what ended Vietnam.

The second the draft came around it ended the war...Oh wait...
:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

45. The odd thing is they actually believe this nonsense.

We have now seen stated here repeatedly since our beloved Rangel pulled his bi-annual stunt, that a draft would prevent war. The fact that we had two major voluntary wars while in the midst a 'peacetime' draft does not deter them at all. Of course we have had a whole bunch of somewhat smaller voluntary wars while under the non-draft conditions since 1973. So prehaps we should conclude that a draft has no effect on our leader's willingness to set out on military adventures, but might have some effect on the size of the wars they get us into.

[0rganism]

18. The entire notion rests upon a single false premise....

"If they (elected reps) had to worry about their own kids being sent off to war, they would be less likely to approve it unless there really was no other choice."

The people who call the shots do so because, draft or no, they don't have to worry about it.

George W. Bush is the textbook example of what happens to the children of privelege during a draft. Adding in the possibility of "community voluteers" only compounds this inequity.

We will stop sending our own children to wars when we learn to respect every human as a mother's child as much as our own. Anything less is self-inflicted illusion.

[EdwardM]

21. There is no way you can have a fair draft.

The rich will always find a way to get out, no matter what. All a draft does is punish poor children.

[Warpy]

22. That bullshit DIDN'T WORK

Remember, we already tried that nonsense.

First of all rich kids will not be affected. Take that to the bank, their parents will send them offshore for "advanced education before they'll let the precious spawn rub elbows with the proles in ANY sort of national service scam, even if it's like Stupid's Champagne Unit of the NG. The children of the rich never have, are not, and will not be subject to a draft, PERIOD!

In the second place, the parents of all the kids poor enough not to buy 20 years of advanced education at the Sorbonne will justify it exactly the way they did 20 years ago: It's a DUTY! It'll be the making of him/her! It'll toughen them up!

Remember, those of us over 50 remember this shit. We know what a draft is like. It's stupid. We fought like hell to END IT. Don't be stupid enough to buy the horeshit again.

Rangel only proposed this crap to point out the class issues in this country and also prevent Stupid from instituting a draft, since Stupid will never do anything proposed by a Democrat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Community service wasn't an option before

and women weren't drafted either.

[Warpy]

44. It isn't an option NOW

not if a madman is in office and he wants proles to throw at the enemy in some war of convenience.

They'll make kids do what they need them to do and the military will always be at the top of the list.

Drafting girls during their prime childbearing years is STUPID, TOO. Doing the slave labor of producing and raising the next generation of citizens is community service enough, thanks.

[BlackVelvet04]

83. So the rich kids take the option of community service and the

poor still fight the wars.

Gheesh.

[Zhade]

137. Post #37 above destroyed your "community service/rich will serve" argument.

You should reread it.

[gaspee]

25. All in favor

Of a draft. If a draft is what it takes to get people off their asses, to make the slaughter in their name MEAN something, then by all means. Draft everyone between the ages of 20 and 40, male and female. And hey look, I fall in there! So, no, I'm not volunteering people for something I won't do.

Maybe there would be more people at the next anti-war rally if there was a draft. Maybe more people would get their asses off the couch and away from the stupid football games to actually care that their country's actions led to the slaughtering of a large percentage of a sovereign (oops) nation.

Bring back the draft and bring it back now. We need a new period of social unrest. The 60's changed the world and it was because of the draft. Cause if Biff and Skippy could be drafted, the soccer moms might join the hippies in the streets.

The people who won't be able to get out of the draft aren't the George Bush the third's... it's Hayden and Jacob and Cameron... what are all the popular stupid boys names out there in the upper middle class these days?

The people who make about 250-500 G's a year and *think* they're part of the upper class. Well, when little Lucas or Brandee gets drafted, they'll know where they really stand.

This fucking war is an abstration for so many people in this country. If we're going to continue the slaughter, maybe it ought to be brought a little closer to home.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Here here!!

Yes, you get it :)

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Now its everyone between 20-40?

Up the 10,000,000 (18-21) to 40,000,000 (20-40). So that would be 4,000,000,000/day at $100 per draftee or $1,424,000,000,000/yr. All that to get a bigger antiwar rally? Wow. Couldn't we just pay folks to go to a rally twice a year instead?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[philosophie_en_rose]

29. They'd easily sacrifice their young. Draft middle age white men and they might take notice.

:bounce:

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. LOL good point

[MichiganVote]

187. Yup. Prerequisite: Time spent in office/Congress

[Blackhatjack]

33. There has never been a US draft that did not have exceptions for the privileged...

... so I see no way reinstituting a forced military conscription will be any different. Money and power always controls.

Read up on the Civil War conscription effort and you will find the rich 'bought' their way out of serving. Bush and Cheney are prime examples of how they used their position and money to avoid serving in Vietnam.

It just would not happen the way you would like it to be done.

[smitty]

72. Back in the Vietnam era college students were exempt from

the draft, that's why there was such a scramble to get into graducte schools.

[MGD]

34. I agree. Our "all volunteer" military is nothing more than a corporate mercenary force now.

or, if their lucky, political tools.

[magellan]

35. Compulsary national service

I served in the military -- went in right after high school -- and it taught me discipline and gave me a sense of direction I didn't have at 17. I got to travel and lived abroad for a while, which opened my eyes to the world. It also provided money for college. All around it was a positive experience that I think would do a lot of kids some good.

Also, if every able bodied young man and woman had to serve a couple of years at 18, I think the general attitude about going to war would change for the better.

The community service option is also a great idea.

I wouldn't want to institute compulsary national service at the moment -- it'd only feed the neocon war machine. (Although I do agree with Rangel's motivation for suggesting a draft.) But at any other time, if I had children, I'd recommend they sign up for a minimum stint before thinking about college.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

40. That's funny.

Really, that's very funny.

:eyes:

[magellan]

46. Wasn't meant to be.

If you've got anything to say other than snark and :eyes:, why don't you say it?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

52. How about, I'm not going to Iraq?

That's non-negotiable.

And I don't want anyone else being forced to go, either. You don't fool around with the draft, with human lives and wars, to try to end war. How many people will be drafted and in Iraq and about to die before we can end the draft that we put in place?

I'd rather not fool around with fire.

[magellan]

56. Did you even read my post?

I said I wouldn't want a national service now, it would only feed the neocon war machine. Iraq would have to be over.

I believe mandatory service would make people think twice and ask a lot more questions before supporting future wars of choice, knowing their or their children's lives would be at stake. Most of the "patriotic" dipshits that supported invading Iraq, both in Congress and across the country, never served and don't have children serving.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. "I'd recommend they sign up "

That would be a voluntary system, which wouldl be fine with me.

[BlackVelvet04]

84. I'm so happy you learned some discipline and got to travel the world.

however, not everyone wants to play Russian roulette with their lives. I doubt you would be so upbeat had you lost a limb or two in an actual war.

[magellan]

92. If I lost limbs in a phony, illegal war

...due to a country full of people who'd never served and so didn't care to ask questions before sending soldiers they didn't know into hell, you're damn right I wouldn't be upbeat about having served. I can guarantee you that most of the people who didn't think twice about Bush**'s invasion of Iraq would have been appropriately critical of his reasoning if they knew they or their sons and daughters would be on the front lines.

And you know, despite the historic Repug misuse of our military, there are times when defending the country becomes necessary.

[lindisfarne]

38. Your logic is faulty. Also, better to have community svc required after retirement:

in order to get government benefits, you must volunteer 10 hours/week for a year (or the equivalent), and it cannot be for your own church (I've always questioned how something can be "charity" (either in terms of time or money donated) when it's benefitting something that serves you).

As for previous poster: I had plenty of discipline and direction at 17, and the military would have merely been a waste of time.

If community service is an *out* from military service, why are congresspeople (whose (grand)children can choose community service) going to decide any differently regarding military actions?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

39. Have fun with this one.

If you think I'm going to fight for fucktard, you are messed in the head. I will NEVER fight.

[ghostsofgiants]

43. Compulsory military service vs. compulsory community service...

Hmm, wonder which way the scale would tip if kids were forced to choose between the two. My guess: the kids who don't join the military under the current voluntary system would choose community service and it wouldn't make much of a difference. The kids of the leaders? Community service! There's that flaw.

Then you also seem to be neglecting the fact that even if the community service option wasn't there and it was going toward universal compulsory military service, the people in charge are the ones making the laws and as such them having to send their kids is a non-issue because even the Democrats in power would be highly unlikely to include any kind of provision that would mean their kids couldn't get out of it somehow. Remember, they're the ones making the laws, not you.

Never mind the fact that there'd likely be a whole lot of public opposition from those who are skeptical or otherwise opposed to even the possibility that their kids would be put in harm's way. If there was such a public outcry, that'd be a little on the undemocratic side, I think.

Or were you being ironic, a la Dead Kennedys' "Kill The Poor"?

[bpeale]

59. only if that compulsory community service

was to serve in a maximum security prison as a guard for 2 years. not minimum or medium security, just maximum security where the real hardened criminals live ... as a guard not a secretary. if they got to chose, then two equally bad things, not one good one and one bad one. cuts out the slackards too. no free rides.

[ghostsofgiants]

65. Yeah, lock 'em up or ship 'em off!

[Generic Other]

50. Forcing people to involuntary servitude is immoral

No one should be forced to carry a weapon in combat against their will. No one should be forced to be conscripted as slave labor.
No one should volunteer for community service against their will.

Slavery does not make you free. Ever ever ever.

[bpeale]

60. service to your nation is not servitude

if you reap the benefits of this society, a free society, then there must be payment for that freedom. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

[Generic Other]

61. I do not reap any benefits I have not earned

Freedom is not freedom if it's taken from you. How hard is that to understand?

[bpeale]

68. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

WHAT PART OF THAT CONCEPT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. The part where that requires conscription. nt.

[Feron]

90. I think you misunderstand..

It's one thing to voluntarily join the military, but it's quite another to be forced into it. It's not something that's for everyone.

Freedom includes the right to opt out of something. The word for forcing people into preforming labor is slavery. It's wrong no matter what country practices it or what intention brought it into being.

I appreciate the sacrifices that the soldiers have made and continue to make for the rest of us, however the decision to serve is individual. Forced conscription is absolutely contrary to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. And I'm positive that if the country were attacked tomorrow there would be no shortage of volunteers.

People who think that a draft will retard the march to war are naive. Children of the well-connected will just get low-risk jobs except for the few that don't want any special treatment. Not only that, but there will be lots of doctors declaring people unfit due to one ailment or another.

Freedom is easy to take away, but is difficult to get back. Bringing back the draft in a vain attempt to bring back the spirit of the 60's ain't the way to restore freedoms already lost. People are not pawns that exist for a political end.

[bpeale]

94. I am not trying to bring back the 60's

I think what needs to be brought back is the 1776's. One day there WILL be a war on our soil. Will you refuse to fight then? If so, then you do not deserve to have freedom.

As a woman who has served in the military for 9 years, it wasn't all good, but it wasn't all bad either. I became a whole person thru selfless service to my country. Any man who would not do that is a coward.

People need to learn what PATRIOTISM means. It doesn't mean FREE RIDE at the expense of others.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

99. Here is the poll I posted

These responses say something about the validity of belief in securing our own destiny through participation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2800435&mesg_id=2800435

[bpeale]

100. interesting. thanks for the link. missed that one.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. "one day there WILL be a war on our soil"

...Against whom, Nostradamus?

[Generic Other]

110. The part where I fought for my fucking civil rights in the fucking streets

You won't take them away from me by trying to shout me down.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Uh, hmmmm....

Conscription is exactly that "involuntary servitude". Indeed there are many social obligations, however that does not mean that conscription has to be one of them. Given that our leaders have shown a proclivity since WWII ended to take us into one bad overseas adventure after another, providing them with a guaranteed stream of fresh bodies is craven lunacy.

[BlackVelvet04]

86. Oh, puke......

If you have to pay for something it isn't really free, now, is it?

[Generic Other]

111. How have you served? Me and mine have done most of the serving I see

My ex-husband was a Vietnam veteran who currently resides in the psych ward of the VA hospital. A judge gave him the choice of jail or the military after he took a joyride with a friend in his mom's car. The next thing he knew he was in Hue. 1968.

My father fought in WW2 at the Battle of the Bulge. My cousin was a pilot shot down and held as a POW in a German camp. He committed suicide after the war. My uncle lost an arm. My brothers, my son all served in the Navy. Every single one of them volunteered, and not once as far as I can recall did they consider this service something they owed you or anyone else.

After his military service my father always said his two bronze stars and a buck wouldn't buy him a cup of coffee in this free land.

My family has served. More than most. And I will do everything in my power to see that no one else in my family does so again.

I have spent 20 years of my life in public service. I am a teacher. I am not encouraging my students to become cannon fodder to an evil government.

During the Vietnam war, I was part of an underground highway to Canada. I saved more lives from an unjust and immoral war than most Americans. I think that constitutes service to my country.

[HughBeaumont]

141. Huh?

"Freedom isn't Free" is an empty slogan frequently used by Repukes at the pile of swampshit for pro-Iraq war support. There's going to be a war on US soil? Do you support eternal war? Do you know what addictive militarism has DONE to this country in the past 40 years?

I'm amazed that there are people on here who support a draft for real, as in not for the purposes of political nuance or getting "discussion flowing", but for serious REAL. As in "let's put the issue on the table to send ALL kids to die and hope fat bald old white men who cash in hand over fist on perpetual war don't call our bluff, because even though you may protest the war, are you willing to gamble your LIFE for it?". As in warhawkish, "stronger military", "national security", "It would do you soft apathetic young ones some GOOD to take greater interest in your country, puttin' your life on hold and stickin' ya in BOOT CAMP!" real.

I mean, did I step in Republican Underground or something? What an absolutely STUPID concept. What's even worse is that we're being called "cowards" for not seeing the point of this slipshod, non-progressive weirdness.

Have we gone apeshit nuts all of a sudden? Does anyone have any kind of goddamned clue what modern military action is all about and how absolutely pointless and one-sided towards the rich (whether we're talking about who fights it to who profits from it) it all is? Who's going to pay for 7.5 million 18-20 year olds each year for 2-year stints?

I refuse to feed an out-of-control corporate war machine for anyone's benefit. Voters were sick of it as well; that's why we voted these war-mongering assholes OUT.

My kid isn't going to be used as a pawn for ANYone's fucking chess game. MY kid is not dying for Kellogg Brown and Root's stock price. My kid is not going to live with the nightmare of picking up his fellow soldier's remains with tongs and sandwich bags, as my friend who completed his second tour of Iraq had to. It made me absolutely ill and sad to listen to his stories. I felt blackened and saddened for the military families, my friend, the families of the soldiers who were killed in that attack, the Iraqi people who are being subject to this undeserved horridity, ALL of it.

Americans are into factoids, not nuance. To think that middle America is going to understand Rangel's little "point" is as naive as thinking that "point", as he illustrates it, would come to it's full fruition. Rich kids don't fight wars. Draft or not, they WILL get out of it. The Pierce Bushes and Paris Hiltons aren't going to see minute ONE of a boot camp.

Here's an idea. Instead of talking about putting an illegal and unjust war to the forefront, escalation, "all-inclusive drafts", "skin in the game" or whatever, why not discuss the option of PEACE and kicking America's fucked up addiction to militarism once and for all, period?.

[Redstone]

55. Balls. I remember the last draft. The children of privilege ALWAYS got out.

Redstone

[MGD]

58. Compulsory service exists in the following countries:

Austria, Belarus, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China (PRC), Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Eritrea, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iran, Israel, South Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (ROC), Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela.

[Generic Other]

62. Where's England, France, Canada, Australia, Japan?

They have moved beyond the backward notion of compulsory servitude. As we have.

[MGD]

66. "They have moved beyond the backward notion of compulsory servitude."

Is Sweden Backwars? Is Germany backward? Is Norway backward? How about Finland? It's only backward to those American aristocrats who feel that it is better to be served than to serve.

[rockymountaindem]

109. A lot of those countries are or have recently been under constant threat of invasion

Austria: A neutral, nonaligned country during the Cold War, often seen as a potential sattelite by both sides although it didn't want to be. Thus, conscription to preserve neutrality from the Communist Bloc (located in nearby Czechoslovakia) and NATO (Germany and Italy). Percieved constant threat of invasion in case of a Europe-wide emergency.

Belarus: Former USSR constituent republic. Currently the last dictatorship in Europe. As a measure of this country's freedom, consider that it's dictator Lukashenko has maintained the KGB in action with the same name and insignia. He's definately not trying to make any break with the authoritarian past.

Bermuda: Bermuda? What? Oh yeah, they're rushing off to war at the drop of a hat :sarcasm:

Bulgaria: Former Warsaw Pact state.

China: 'nuff said.

Croatia: If you lived in that neighborhood, you'd probably want to have conscription too. Let's not forget that country's distinguished record of a) collaborating with the Nazis and b) partaking whole hog in the bloody wars of the '90s. Hardly a shining example.

Egypt: dictatorship by Hosni Mubarak. Conscription there isn't about preserving freedom, because they don't have a whole lot to preserve.

Eritrea: bloody ongoing war with Ethiopia.

Finland: invaded twice by the USSR, lived under continued threat until 1991.

Germany: Not touching this one.

Greece: Continuing threat of war with Turkey, or at least they see it that way.

Iran: theocracy. Again, conscription isn't defending freedom.

Israel: Under constant threat of attack since its inception, thus conscription.

South Korea: Under constant threat of attack since its inception.

Lebanon: See entries for Israel and South Korea.

Norway: A country of 5 million determined never to allow a replay of the Nazi invasion of 1940. Can't blame 'em.

Poland: Centuries of abuse and conquest. Former Warsaw Pact state. Conscription has a long history there.

Russia: I saw a documentary about basic training and conscription in the Russian army. You should have seen the conscripts. They looked and sounded like they regretted not committing suicide. Plus you have violent hazing rituals, prevalence of physical violence to settle every situation, and an officer corps that couldn't give a damn. That whole army base looked like a den of sadists who had a bunch of 19 year olds dumped into their laps to toy with. Plus, I'd like to point out, conscription hasn't caused the oligarchs to mourn the loss of their sons in Chechnya. The decade-long war there continues unabated despite the presence of the draft. If there's a more perfect example of the draft being used for cannon fodder, I can't think of it.

Singapore: The country where you can be caned for almost anything, and hanged for everything else. Yeah, let's emulate Singapore!

Sweden, Switzerland: Two neutral countries determined to defend themselves in a formerly rough European neighborhood. Sweden has had conscription of some form or another since feudal times.

Taiwan: If you were threatened by China, you'd probaby have conscription too.

Turkey: Constant threat of war with the Kurds, Iraq and with states in the Caucusus.

Ukraine: Tradition of conscription dating to Tsarist times. A proud tradition? You be the judge.

Venezuela: I'm not touching that one.

So, we see a list of countries which are either under constant threat of attack, or have been in recent history. Otherwise you see long-standing traditions from feudal or other dictatorial times. I ask you, is the US under dire threat of invasion or are we clinging to our feudal heritage? If not, the notion of conscription in this country has little to do with those you mentioned.

[spoony]

118. But, but, I thought the draft brings PEACE??

Great post breaking that list down, btw.

[rockymountaindem]

126. Thanks n.t.

[smitty]

70. Anyone who supports the draft should immediately volunteer

for the military if Congress decides to re-instate it. In fact, if Congress does re-instate it, all the eligible children and grandchildren of the congressmen/women should immediately be drafted and sent to Fort Polk Louisiana for basic training.

But its not going to happen, there will be no draft. Period

[ecstatic]

74. I also think people ages 39 to 70 could help out a lot in wars too

There is plenty of paperwork to be done, so why stop at age 39 (or is it 42)? If there is a draft, it needs to go all the way up to age 70. Nobody is exempt!!! :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Ok I'll work the numbers on that.

Lets see, 200,000,000 * 100/day = 20B/day = 7.3 trillion/year. Yeah baby!

[enough already]

77. This thread is proof that stupid ideas never really die

They don't even fade away.

[BlooInBloo]

87. As long as the loopholes for the well-connected aren't there, I'm fine with it.

[DemBones DemBones]

88. If we had a draft that allowed for your expressed wish

"I also think kids should be able to serve as community volunteers if they don't want to go into the military"

would enough kids choose the mlitary to keep up the troop strength we need?


We've created a caste system that relies heavily on poor kids to maintain troop strength.


I agree that national service is a good idea that encompasses many options besides the military, but some people still have to go in the military. Perhaps a lottery could decide who goes in the mlitary and who does another sort of national service?

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. Well if my plan works

we won't need massive numbers in the military.

[U4ikLefty]

89. What if those "kids" refused en masse? Shall we build MORE prisons?

If I was young I would resent you telling me to "contribute" when your generation isn't doing shit to make a better future.

[lonestarnot]

91. Richies kids still will not see combat so WTF are you talking about?

[JVS]

93. I think you should volunteer to serve if you're so gung-ho about making other people do so.

[Superman Returns]

101. my take

I think the OP should enlist right now.

[BlackVelvet04]

102. I bet your two are thrilled....

so you're willing for your two to die in Iraq to make a point?

[Beam Me Up]

106. I'f we'd had a draft on 9/11, they'd be in Iran now.

It is the FACT that we have a ALL VOLUNTEER military AND that enlistments are DOWN that has prevented the neocons from carrying out their full-on imperial agenda. The idea that you can legislate the wealthy to let their children be drafted is delusional. We can't even get them to obey the laws we have NOW. Finally, having a draft WOULD NOT make Congress pause one instant -- any more than they did w/ Bush and Iraq -- IF there were another false-flag operation against our country like 9/11. STUPIDIST idea ever to come from a Democrats office. Not only that, Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot politically with this one.

[Akoto]

107. Yes, lets just use people my age as gambling chips. n/t

[Zodiak]

108. Compulsory community service

is a left-wing authoritarian concept I find just as disturbing as right-wing authoritarian concepts.

Our kids are going to pay the outlandish bills the government has accrued. They will receive little benefit for it as the benefits have already been given to the adults of this generation.

And now we want to take their freedom, too?

I also find it disturbing how many of us on the left are now screaming the right-wing mantra, "freedom isn't free!" I am in bizarro world.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. Another odd thing about bizarro world (rw branch)

the same folks who are yelling "freedom isn't free!" are frequently also yelling "taxes are theft".

I agree about this being left-authoritarianism here, and also with the poster a bit higher up who observes that if we had a draft in place after 9-11 the jingoist insanity that was prevalent would most likely have put us into a much broader conflict, with the draft being the enabling element for a truly huge military adventure. The vast danger of this all seems lost on our friends here, in their naive enthusiasm for compulsory altruism.

[Zodiak]

115. I agree

Altruism not given freely is not altruism at all, in my opinion.

[Katzenjammer]

113. "Left-wing authoritarian"??

Let's see. If we have X that needs doing and it's something that nobody wants to do, what are our options?

- Not do it. Let whatever it is go undone, rot, fall apart, whatever.

- Draw lots for it, loser has to roll up sleeves.

- Subtly force some member of a powerless social group to do it by limiting their other choices.

- Let people buy themselves out, the last one standing being forced to do it.

- Hire someone to do it, paying them whatever it takes. Divvy the cost up equally.

What's the left-wing NON-authoritarian option, then? Did I miss out something?

[Zodiak]

114. Put simply...incentives (or bribery...however you wish to spin)

Feed the homeless, earn a scholarship.

Work your butt off fixing up New Orleans for a couple of years? Get a loan for a small business.

Work as a teacher in a poor district for 4 years? Get 100% forgiveness on student loans.

None of this requires compulsory service, and yes, the rich won't do it and will get a free pass. But the ones who do will reap great rewards and will do so far more enthusiastically because they were not made to do it.

As far as the other issue of civic virtue, I agree we need more, but it can be done in a far more American way by honoring the principles of self-determination and liberty. Civic virtue should be freely given, not taken by force or threat of force. If we want to promote civic virtue, I can think of much better methods than conscription for national service, which is a very authoritarian position.

[Katzenjammer]

116. So you're in favor of ensuring that the non-poor need never risk anything?

Because unless my family is poor, I'm off the hook. Why risk my life and body for a fistful of dollars? Only the poor are put into that fix.

Would you be willing to try supporting that position by reference to generally-agreed principles within the context of democracy and the social contract?

[Zodiak]

135. I also believe in taxing the crap out of the rich

So it comes out in the wash.

And no, I am not willing to take away everyone's liberty and self-determination (even for two years) in order to ensure we see some rich people helping out in a food line or in the army.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. I'm going to even ask a sillier question

do yuo KNOW what a social contract is?

[Zodiak]

162. I do

However, I fail to see how this philosphical discussion on why we have a "state" vs. a "state of nature" is relevent to the issue of forced labor.

And I know what civic virtue is. My take on that issue is that civic virtue is inspired, not mandated in a free society. Otherwise, those that we hold up as exmaples in society are as empty as those Big Brother was holding up for his society in "1984".

[Katzenjammer]

163. Are you rich, then? Because it's usually the rich who equate money

with someone's life and limb. When you talk about how taxing the rich would balance out the risk to life and limb endured by the poor, you sound shockingly elitist.

Any democrat will see such claim of parity as nonsense on its face. But the elites make the claim anyway because they aren't democrats and really do believe that the rest of us are less worthy, less human even, than they are. So to them, their money really is comparable to our lives, since our lives are nowhere near as important as their lives. To them, we are only instruments of their wealth, like a forest to be clearcut or a mountain to be strip-mined.

[Zodiak]

164. Depends on what you are talking about

When it comes to military...yes, life and limb are at risk (provided there is a war). I disagree with the poor shouldering the burden exclusively, but I do not think that forcing people to join is the solution. We need a military that wants to be there, and we should pay them well for their sacrifice.

The military needs to be a viable professional career and not a way-station for the poor. I do not like the status quo, but I do not think that solving the problem involves a massive authoritarian effort to force people in the military.

What I am talking about in the above post is "national service", which is simply labor. Labor does equal money in our society, so there is no disparity there on the national service issue.

And for the record, I am dirt poor, grew up poor, and have never seen a job over 25K a year in my life. I am currently a student. I am not an elitist as far as I know; I am a libertarian, populist Democrat.

[Katzenjammer]

167. You disagree with the poor bearing the burden, but disagree with everyone doing it?

Okay, why don't you come up with a third alternative. How about only university students doing it?

[Zodiak]

168. I already did

But you did not listen.

We need to make the military a viable career. In other words, make the pot sweet and they will come. All by choice and choice alone.

Conscipts are wasted training (because they leave as soon as conscription is over).

A "free" country that forces people into defending it doesn't deserve to be defended in the first place, in my opinion.

As far as university students being forced, I consider that argument a non-sequitir, but I would be against it because once again we are forcing people.

[Katzenjammer]

170. So you want a paid military. In what way, exactly, would that attract

the non-poor except during times of no conflict? If you weren't poor, would you risk being killed or maimed for money? If so, why?

[Zodiak]

172. It beats an unpaid military or a conscript army

In a nutshell, because some people actually like the military and think that it is best for them, they join up (and often make excellent soldiers). I am a military brat and grew up in the military culture, so I am speaking from experience on this one. People get the "calling" to be a soldier in the same way they get a calling to be a cop, or a fireman, or jump through flaming hoops. If the compensation is sufficient to support a family for a lifetime, many will answer their calling instead of pursue more lucrative (but less interesting) careers. Even if only 1% of us felt that way, that is potentially 850,000 ready and willing recruits per generation (a bigger army than that is only good for imperialism).

It is not all about money for those who join...it is about patriotism, but the money allows those to answer the call of patriotism without putting their families on food stamps. As it stands now, they have to do exactly that.

Forcing people to join will invariably lead to insufficient compensation (no wage competition for good people). That will make the military less attractive and efficient, not more.

Not to be hyperbolic, but we all risk getting killed and maimed every day for money when we drive to work. We just aren't as conscious of those risks. The same can be said about the convenience store clerk or the liquor store clerk who make a pittance for their risk of life and limb. Same can be said about bicycle messengers. And window-washers. Coal-miners....etc. etc. etc. We cannot eliminate those risks, but we can at least try to compensate people adequately for that risk.

Lastly, I do not want rich people (or apathetic people) who do not care in our military....or doing public service. The last thing we need is a Percy ("The Green Mile") mucking things up for the soldiers and volunteers who take their work seriously. Many conscripts are morale-killers (like me if I was drafted...I wouldn't stop bitching).

[Katzenjammer]

176. So why haven't you signed up? Since you claim to be poor, the pay must look pretty good.

So why aren't you doing it? Could it be because you're only "poor" by comparison with your goal state, and unlike the truly poor, have other options?

While you're pondering that question, perhaps you'd be willing to produce some data to support your assertion that a meaningful number of the non-poor choose military enlistment as a career. By "meaningful number" I mean enough to keep the military career-enlisted ranks from being majority-poor.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. What "needs doing"? I see these threads, I see people bitching about "lazy, spoiled kids"

I see people grousing about Ipods and Playstations, like Bill O'Reilly does.

Personally, I think the "left-wing non authoritarian" option is the last one you presented.

What's a left wing authoritarian? Sheesh, they're not that hard to spot. They tend to think things like consenting adult porn and meat eating should be made illegal. They support free speech - sort of (if it offends them, it's not free speech). And they think that through something called "mandatory service" we can force the youth of this country to stop thinking about selfish things like college and careers and making a decent living an' stuff.

[Katzenjammer]

121. "the left-wing non authoritarian" option is the last one"

Okay. To me that looks capitalistic, elitist, and bone-selfish. Hiring it done would guarantee that only the poor would have to risk their lives and limbs.

I can't think of a way to make a principled case, within the context of democracy and the social contract, for that. The idea that some group of people should be so privileged as to enjoy all the benefits a stable, law-abiding society provides without having to risk their life, limb, or assets doesn't work for me. To me, the entire basis of society is shared risk.

Perhaps you'd be willing to try making a principled case for burdening the poor that way?

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Okay, tax rich people to pay for it, then.

This idea that we're all indentured servants, our physical persons belong to "the state"- and not ourselves- is bullshit no matter where it originates.

I'm sorry if my answer looks "capitalistic" (eeek!) I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a communist. I'm a registered democrat, and I believe in the free market, competition, and (yes) regulated capitalism. Quick! Report me to the Comintern! :eyes:

You also haven't answered the question: what is it that "needs doing" that only untrained 18-20 yr olds can be conscripted to do?

[Katzenjammer]

123. "You also haven't answered the question: what is it that "needs doing""

Anything. I'm talking about the general case.

Taxing rich people to pay poor people to risk their lives and limbs doesn't balance the equation in my book.

Are you willing to try to make a principled case or not?

[Warren DeMontague]

124. That's still not an answer.

At the risk of repeating myself: The idea that our physical persons belong to the state is bullshit, no matter where it originates.

That IS the "principled case".

[Katzenjammer]

129. That looks like a strawman, to me. You haven't demonstrated any "belong to"

Being required to pony up isn't the same as "belong to". It's repayment of a debt. The debt is what you contract when you choose to enjoy the advantages of a stable, lawful society rather than go off to somewhere that has no civic responsibilities because it has no civic structure. You don't have to take out the garbage or do military service in such a non-society, but you're on your own if you want water without typhoid or a night's sleep without someone cutting your throat.

Want to try again?

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Eh. Whatever. Maybe you want to "try again". You're the one who is unwilling to answer

a straightforward question.

I disagree that compulsory service is "repayment of a debt". But, hey- since you disagree, good luck getting it passed any time soon.

And if it's not a case of "your body belonging to the state", perhaps you could lay out what penalties you think there should be for the inevitable people who avoid the thing.

Or, since you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you could try living in Israel. I know their take on it is pretty much the same as yours.

[Katzenjammer]

158. Well, when someone feigns ignorance of what "general case" means,

refuses to offer principled support for his willful assertions, and uses ad-hom insults, it eventually becomes clear even to me that I'm talking to the over-privileged and under-responsible. So I'll stop.

You'll doubtless be gratified to know that the Reaganite cartoonist Chuck Asay agrees with you about compulsory service being slavery:

[Zodiak]

165. For the record

equating another's position with a mutual enemy is a cheap way to score a debate point. (you drink tea??? Hitler drank TEA!!!!) So he agrees with a Republican on this issue?...big deal. The sun shines on a dog's ass every now and again. I happen to agree with the cartoon, as well.

Calling him overpriveledged and irresponsible is just as much of an ad-hom as you accuse your opponent of using. You accused me of being rich upthread without any evidence....is this the tack you wish to take in an argument?

When one attacks the messenger and not the message, then that person appears to have run out of things to say.

Just something to remember because you are obviously trying to convince people, but your methods will not convince many if you use these techniques.

[Warren DeMontague]

180. "Ad-Hom"? Like calling me "over-priviledged and under-responsible"?

You don't know jack diddly shit about me, Jack. All you know is, I happen to think we have too much of this "your body belongs to the state" mentality AS IT IS.

I happen to think THAT CONCEPT is bullshit, whether it's promoted to provide gristle for a Vietnam/Iraq/Iran war machine or out of the alleged "good intentions" of people who piss and moan and bitch and whine- as near as I can tell, because they're jealous of someone else's Ipod.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. I'm not.

I think it's an atrocious idea. We've got too much of this "Your body belongs to the state" mentality as it IS.

[Renew Deal]

125. I think we should have some form of rewarding national service.

Military service should not be mandatory. 2 years of well compensated/rewarding work.

[last1standing]

128. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE MY BABIES!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but that's what someone on the board said when I suggested the same thing. :rofl:

In a way, though, that's what this is all about. There are people here, and elsewhere, who want everything handed to them on a silver platter and want to give nothing back. I think that a permenant draft, not only for the armed forces but also AmericaCorp and other helpful governmental institutions would be a great way of teaching our children the concept of service.

And yes, I am definitely within the age group that would be mandated to serve. I'm willing to serve if the nation calls me.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. You know what? They're right.

You got any kids, laughing-man?

If not, why don't you wait until you DO before you start hyuk hyuk hyukking it up at other people's hesitation at sending them off to conscription, which in the past has meant turning them over to meat grinders like Vietnam.

Wait until you hold your own baby in your arms. Then see what your reaction is to someone who says they "owe" it to society to be shipped off to a pointless war based on lies.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:, har har.

If you think service is such a great idea, then serve.

Forcing people to do so against their will is bullshit, and a waste of time, money, and law enforcement resources (what should the penalty be for the people who avoid it, as some inevitably will?)...

...but judging by some people's grousing comments re: "silver platters" and "spoiled brats with cell phones and ipods", it's more about grinding an axe against people they're jealous of, than any concrete desire to better society.

[last1standing]

142. Yet another post filled with silly asumptions and the pulling of heartstrings.

There's not one part of your post that was correct about me and the rest of it was nothing more than a feeble attempt to use sentimental imagery to bolster up a lack of logic or ability to reason out a debatable point.

:sniff, sniff: Don't take away my babies!!!!!!! :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

148. So. Still no answer. Got any kids, or not?

...

[last1standing]

150. If you couldn't read my answer then more info surely won't help.

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

153. So, then, you DO have kids.

If you can't answer a simple yes or no question, why should anyone listen to you rail on and on about forced fucking conscription?

Yeah. As opposed to sentimental heartstring-pulling, like pointing out that Vietnam was a meat grinder. Sure.

[last1standing]

154. So if I didn't have kids you wouldn't allow me an opinion?

Why stop there? Maybe we can make it mandatory to have children before one can vote. After all those votes could affect their future. Do you not realize how silly that sounds?

[Warren DeMontague]

155. I realize how silly it sounds for you to make shit up, put it in my mouth, and argue against it.

But if that's what gets you off in lieu of actual debate, have at it.

If you didn't have kids -and lets be real, here, you never actually answered the question- then I think it would make you sound extra obnoxious, clueless, and insensitive for mocking a poster who said "You won't take away my babies".

Don't get me wrong, even if you DO have kids, I think your approach to it was plenty friggin' obnoxious.

Beyond that, you like to jib-jabber about "presenting a real argument", but the only argument you've presented here for conscription is that you're pissed off that "they" supposedly expect life handed to them on a silver platter. And you didn't answer another question about a draft, namely, what should happen to the inevitable kids who don't go. Hopefully, you can answer that in one or two sentences, and not play this game where I'm supposed to be Karnak and guess what it is you're trying to say.

[last1standing]

156. LOL! I gave up trying to have a discussion with you from your first post.

This exchange was just to see how insulting and righteous you could get. I think we've hit the limit now, so goodbye. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

157. That's me, Mr. Righteous.

Whereas you're just the guy who thinks mocking the protective love of a parent is :rofl:

'Nite.

[Zodiak]

166. I think the point is

If you don't have kids, don't laugh at those that do because they are afriad of the government taking their children away.

You can point out the fear is unfounded, but you should not use roll on the floor belly laughing icons. It looks like jeering to the casual reader.

[last1standing]

181. Had he been nearly as polite as you, I would have given him his answer.

Instead he tried to make me sound like a bloodthirsty repub for supporting some form of mandatory service for adults. After that I had little interest in his opinions or in relieving his curiosity.

I can understand the :rofl: smilie being misinterpreted, but we don't have that large a selection for our use. I'm not laughing at the idea of young people being forced to kill or die, I'm trying to show disgust for those who would put their personal desires above the needs of our country.

[HughBeaumont]

143. My kid is going to be a zoo vet.

Not a hazed and demoralized target dying in the sand for Raytheon's boardroom.

These closet warhawk jingoists need to spare ME the bullshit that serving in the military means "sharing the stake of our country"; fighting for "rights", "freedoms" and the greater good.

They're fighting because the Carlyle Group, KBR and Halliburton just do not have enough goddamned money.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I agree. Tell it to the poster who is mocking a mother for saying

"don't take away my babies".

:rofl: Har. :rofl: Har. :rofl: Har.

He's displaying the same sort of "humanity" that privates beavis and butt-head do in that video where they're taunting the little kid with bottled water.

Yeah. Don't take away my babies. How hysterically funny. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

147. Yep. Seen that.

Infantilizing them. What horrid parenting. :eyes:

[Countdown_3_2_1]

130. The Problem With Forced Community Service...ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE, INCOMPETENCE

OK. To avoid being drafted into the marines, Johny (now 18)takes the community service route. He is assigned to work with the elderly.
He doesn't want to be there. He doesn't care. He's just pulling his two years to get out of there.
Johny provides sub par service. The elderly he cares for object, and Johny beats them up for complaining.

Forced community service is a recipe for abuse!

Sally also signed up. She is assigned fire fighting duties with the national forests. Its back breaking work. She doesn't care, she does a sub par job. and her negligence causes her to misread the signs and she is caught and killed in a fire.

Josh just doesn't care. He's figured out that he can't be fired. He only does the work when his community commander is there, and cooks the books to look like he's worked the rest of the time. His coworkers do the same. Now a job that takes 6 months is still undone two years later.

Forced Community service IS slavery. To force a slave to dig a ditch, a master has to be watching his slave or the slave will run away.

If you want to stop a war, stop it! But don't create a system of forced labor in times of peace.
Let the people live in peace.
Forced community service = forced labor camps.

[kohodog]

131. Permanent Draft = Permanent War

Sweet.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

132. Whats the penalty for being AWOL with Forced Community Service?

We gonna put kids in jail cause they don't wanna dig ditches?

[Warren Stupidity]

138. We've had that discussion and yes: you go to jail.

That would be the compulsory part. This debate, over the last two weeks, has me sputtering in disbelief. The last relic of what we kids did when we fought in the streets, when we resisted in the army, when we refused to participate in their war machine, the abolition of the unprecedented decades long 'peacetime' draft of the cold war era, these folks would toss out. They would bring the draft back, all dressed up in some fancy egalitarian wrapper, call it something else, and provide the war machine, currently hurting for bodies, with all the bodies they could ever want. Oh but the crooks and liars, the corrupt leaders of our two institutionalized parties would never dare to misuse our kids, or so they claim. How short are their memories? How ahistorical is their perspective? How naive or mendacious are they?

[Katzenjammer]

159. If I understand you correctly, you object to the uses to which a conscript army

would be put, not to the idea of conscription itself (you'd be okay with concription if we were invaded, for example). Do I have that right?

[Warren Stupidity]

160. No you have that wrong.

I object to the entire idea of conscription. You might be able to convince me that in a dire emergency, under conditions of true national peril, conscription might be the best available alternative, but that is it. I find the argument that if we do not care enough to voluntarily defend our nation then our nation does not deserve to exist rather compelling. A peacetime draft is simply us writing a blank check to our corrupt leaders to go have some more bad wars.

[Katzenjammer]

161. I'm still not clear about where you stand, I'm afraid.

You say "I find the argument that if we do not care enough to voluntarily defend our nation then our nation does not deserve to exist rather compelling."

Does that "we" mean everyone? What if some do care and others don't? Do the ones who don't get a free ride, or should they be forced to do it involuntarily, or thrown out, or what? How do numbers factor in (i.e., majority care vs minority care)?

[Warren Stupidity]

184. It means that if we cannot staff an army to defend ourselves

under conditions of real national peril that we do not deserve to survive. Yes sure, as always there will be some who hitch a ride. Oh well. Despite the naive claims here that this time the draft will be different, the historical experience has been since our first draft for the Civil War, that the rich and powerful always have an out, are never in harm's way unless they choose to be there. Your draft will be no different, despite your do-gooder-at-gunpoint best intentions. Your system will not end the free rider problem.

"we" means us. The people of this nation. If enough of us don't volunteer, then the army will not have enough bodies and we will lose our fight to survive. If enough of us do volunteer then we might survive. The ones who don't volunteer don't. Just like today.

[Katzenjammer]

185. Thanks for clarifying. That sounds an awful lot like a mix of despair and enabling, though

I don't really like the idea that the chickenhawks get a free ride on the backs of the poor. I'd rather we did our best to force them to hoof it themselves. At least then we'll have tried to be a democratic society. Somehow that seems important.

[Zodiak]

169. wow...I just wrote the same position upthread

perhaps you are a libertarian Dem?

[Warren Stupidity]

182. left libertarian.

I what I see here is a war between the authoritarian left and the libertarian left.

[Zhade]

134. Thank goodness most Americans disagree with this insanity.

NT!

[HughBeaumont]

144. I'm disgusted beyond belief there are Democrats who agree with it.

Permanent draft means permanent WAR. What part of this do people not get?

Is the course of empire a progressive value?

"I'm anti-war, but pro- supplying an endless amount of bodies for more of them"?

[Beelzebud]

173. Agreed... It's really astounding...

This country didn't learn one damned thing from Vietnam...

Did the draft keep Vietnam from happening? Nope. It just fed the war machine fresh human bodies.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. Once again, Zhade is the voice of reason.

:yourock: :patriot:

[Exiled in America]

174. I want to know how many people who want a draft would go themselves.

I don't even think talking about sending their kids is good enough.

Basically, I feel like if you're exempt from the draft, then your motivations for talking about all the glorious benefits of a draft are suspect. If you support a draft then I damn well expect YOU yourself personally to enlist. Not your children, not your brother, not your cousin - you. Do you're part to put your own money where your mouth is.

[Zodiak]

178. I would be exempt from any draft

unless it was a draft for people to sit in one place and shuffle papers with little stress. (heart condition).

But dammit, I do not want anyone taken against their will by this government to do good or bad. One doesn't have to have skin in the game to see that the price of one's self-determination and liberty is too costly to teach civic virtue or make sure a few rich brats pay their fair share.

It is a dumb idea that makes some liberals look out of touch with average Americans. I disavow the idea.

[Book Lover]

179. And what is your plan for those people who are parents at the ages of 18-21?

And what about those who have stable jobs at that age?

When I was 18, I wasn't the most together in terms of my overall level of maturity, but I had been working every day (part and full time) since the age of 13. As the youngest daughter in an Italian-American Catholic family, my obligation was to care for my ill mother as well as myself, the house, and my education. Setting aside many of the other problems I have with the draft (search my username to find them - its seems like I've posted a dozen times on this issue in the past few weeks), what about those of us who aren't lazy bums at the age of 18? I already knew and understood about service by that time - what other moral lessons might I have learned from this draft you propose?

[PVnRT]

183. ...and here we go again

Being right > other people's lives