News Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[The Smoking Man]

AMERICANS COULD BE PRESSED INTO MANDATORY COMMUNITY SERVICE
NewsWithViews.com June 30, 2004

The Universal National Service Act of 2003 sitting in this 108th Congress In the Senate, S89 (Senate Bill), ) reads: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

(D-The House of Representatives has a 'sister' bill, HR 163 (House Resolution), which contains the same language. Both bills will make it mandatory for women to serve in the military as well as men; the age window for induction is 18-26.
(DMilly Sundquist of Houston Texas is spitting mad. "How dare this government continue with further attempts to destroy the family unit by pressing women into mandatory military service! My daughter will turn 23 next year and is engaged to be married. She's extremely upset that this government could force her into the military and send her to someplace like the Middle East to be raped or beheaded by people who care nothing for human life or dignity."

Lauren Beecham, a paralegal studying for her law degree in NY, majored in world history and says Community service - especially forced community service - is rooted in communist doctrine." Section 1 in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

And yet in China, there is no manditory service ... Israel and the Netherlands have it though and I think Germany.

 

[2CentsWorth]

So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.

Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?

I would be the first to fight to defend our country (e.g., when attacked), and I suspect most if not all Americans would do likewise. The problem is this is an unpopular war that lacks the support of the majority of Americans and most of the world. It is illegal, instigated with lies, and has resulted in less security for our nation. Yet you say we should all be sheep and stampede of a cliff behind a bunch of idiots yelling the charge? And if one doesn't blindly follow they are unpatriotic, ungrateful liberal bastards? Hmm...Have you heard of representation before taxation?

 

[Archon]

Yes I am...

If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?

Actually, I believe that Harvard's admission is need-blind, so presumably, anyone can afford to go to Harvard.

That aside, while I don't really disagree with what you're saying here, doesn't it seem even a little inconsistent if some children are given what is, in effect, free money from their parents when the same can't be true of people who are struggling to survive and could be saved by government money? In neither case have the recipients "earned" the money in any way.

And if each person is responsible for his or her own success, why is this not true of children who happen to be born into wealthy families?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes I am...

If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?

So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.

The reason I mention Yale is because clearly, Bush didn't belong there and it was 'daddy's money that got him in.

 

[Townsend]

I would be the first to fight to defend our country (e.g., when attacked), and I suspect most if not all Americans would do likewise. The problem is this is an unpopular war that lacks the support of the majority of Americans and most of the world. It is illegal, instigated with lies, and has resulted in less security for our nation. Yet you say we should all be sheep and stampede of a cliff behind a bunch of idiots yelling the charge? And if one doesn't blindly follow they are unpatriotic, ungrateful liberal bastards?

No...I don't believe that you have to support a war that you disagree with. However, serving in the military does not mean that you support the war, it only means that you are serving in the military. You have a right to vote and a right to speak out against this war. You have a right to form organized protest and I encourge you to do so if that's your perspective.

Hmm...Have you heard of representation before taxation?

Yeah, I am glad that we have it too.

 

[Townsend]

Actually, I believe that Harvard's admission is need-blind, so presumably, anyone can afford to go to Harvard.

That aside, while I don't really disagree with what you're saying here, doesn't it seem even a little inconsistent if some children are given what is, in effect, free money from their parents when the same can't be true of people who are struggling to survive and could be saved by government money? In neither case have the recipients "earned" the money in any way.

And if each person is responsible for his or her own success, why is this not true of children who happen to be born into wealthy families?

You have the right to do as well as you can with whatever ever facilities you have at your disposal. That does not mean that you have a right to a rich daddy. Some people are born with no legs and are born with a physical disadvantage. Life is not fair and sometimes its even cruel to those who deserve to most from life. The rich people are rich and the poor people are poor and some rich people may not deserve it but that is not for you to decide for them. Some poor people may deserve a lot more but that does not make it my responsibility or the governments responsibility to make sure they get what they deserve.

If someones family cannot afford to give their child a good life then it is left to that child to go out into the cruel world and learn how to make it. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. But here they at least have the opportunity to make it. And rich or poor it really is up to them what they do with their life.

 

[Townsend]

So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.

The reason I mention Yale is because clearly, Bush didn't belong there and it was 'daddy's money that got him in.

No, daddy's money is daddy's money and service money is service money. There are no equations to balance here. Bush senior has a right to send his son to whatever school he can afford to send him to.

 

[Townsend]

I asked you if the government is responsible to the will of the majority in a democracy and you responded that they do not have to answer to the will of 'faction'.

Can you explain the terms and how the 'Majority in a Democracy' is considered a 'Faction'?

I would but it has been done for me by much smarter people.

Read the Federalist papers number 10 and number 51 by James Madison.

 

[Archon]

You have the right to do as well as you can with whatever ever facilities you have at your disposal. That does not mean that you have a right to a rich daddy. Some people are born with no legs and are born with a physical disadvantage. Life is not fair and sometimes its even cruel to those who deserve to most from life. The rich people are rich and the poor people are poor and some rich people may not deserve it but that is not for you to decide for them. Some poor people may deserve a lot more but that does not make it my responsibility or the governments responsibility to make sure they get what they deserve.

If someones family cannot afford to give their child a good life then it is left to that child to go out into the cruel world and learn how to make it. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. But here they at least have the opportunity to make and rich or poor it really is up to them what they do with their life.

It's certainly true that many people are born with a physical disadvantage, but this is not really comparable to an economic disadvantage: if someone is born without arms and legs, then there is nothing that can be done to ensure that this person has a normal life with the same opportunities supposedly available to all of us. If, on the other hand, someone is born into poverty, their chances of "finding riches" are obviously not statistically very high, or poverty would no longer exist. In this case, the disadvantage is an economic one: if you make only enough money to feed yourself and your family, then you can't very well use money to increase your living standard. Poor areas tend to have lower-quality schools, which correlates with lower achievment and income. Etc, etc, etc.

But if the government provides people with enough resources (not necessarily money) to survive, then the people will have the ability to use the money they earn to advance their living standard and perhaps rise out of poverty.

If the government has the ability to save people from abject poverty, what exactly do you find disagreeable in actually doing so? Even if this is not the government's "responsibility," surely a (more or less) civilized society can agree to spend money on preventing the suffering of those who are often without recourse in a world which increasingly requires skills which are difficult to acquire from a position of poverty.

 

[Archon]

I would but it has been done for me by much smarter people.

Read the Federalist papers number 10 and number 51 by James Madison.

In the specific example given by The Smoking Man, the majority is not doing anything to harm or intrude upon the rights of the minority. Rather, they wish not to be forced to join the military, a purely personal choice, at least until true need arises. In this case, true need refers to such a thing as an attack on American soil, rather than the need to remedy the foreign errors of our leaders.

In contrast, if the minority wished to force the majority into military service on the end of an economic sword, I would consider this the imposition of the will of a "faction" on the rest of the American people: precisely what Madison wished to prevent.

 

[Townsend]

It's certainly true that many people are born with a physical disadvantage, but this is not really comparable to an economic disadvantage:

I know, I was just using it as an example.

if you make only enough money to feed yourself and your family, then you can't very well use money to increase your living standard. Poor areas tend to have lower-quality schools, which correlates with lower achievment and income. Etc, etc, etc.

The question I have to ask is, why are they so poor? There is so much opportunity in this country I just don't understand it. When I was stationed in Lemoore CA I was renting from a Mexican family that came into the US not 15 years ago and now they are very rich. They came with no money and no education. They never needed a hand out because they were willing to work any kind of job and they saved up and well...you get the idea.

But if the government provides people with enough resources (not necessarily money) to survive, then the people will have the ability to use the money they earn to advance their living standard and perhaps rise out of poverty.

If I thought it would work then I might consider it but I think handouts only perpetuate the problem.

If the government has the ability to save people from abject poverty, what exactly do you find disagreeable in actually doing so?

Because I believe that most people either are never going to make it no matter how much money you give them or they don't really need the handouts.

Even if this is not the government's "responsibility," surely a (more or less) civilized society can agree to spend money on preventing the suffering of those who are often without recourse in a world which increasingly requires skills which are difficult to acquire from a position of poverty.

The skills that are needed to become successful in this country have little to do with a college education. They have to do with work ethic and perseverance. If someone wants to become a doctor they most certainly can and they can do it without any government handouts too.

I want all people to be successful but don't think social welfare is a solution.

Regards

 

[The Smoking Man]

No...I don't believe that you have to support a war that you disagree with. However, serving in the military does not mean that you support the war, it only means that you are serving in the military. You have a right to vote and a right to speak out against this war. You have a right to form organized protest and I encourge you to do so if that's your perspective.

Not if you're in the military and under fire in the gulf.

These articles specifically strip you of that right:

The Code of Conduct

I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies.

I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Tell me I have the right to pick up my plackard instead of my gun and say, "NO" and not get shot for treason.

Which, by the way, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on illegal orders.

 

[Townsend]

In the specific example given by The Smoking Man, the majority is not doing anything to harm or intrude upon the rights of the minority. Rather, they wish not to be forced to join the military, a purely personal choice, at least until true need arises.

And I said that they did not have to join the military.

In this case, true need refers to such a thing as an attack on American soil, rather than the need to remedy the foreign errors of our leaders.

In contrast, if the minority wished to force the majority into military service on the end of an economic sword, I would consider this the imposition of the will of a "faction" on the rest of the American people: precisely what Madison wished to prevent.

I don't want to force them to do something against their will. I want them to earn the subsidized loans for college, to earn the oppertunities that the government can offer them.

If they don't want those little perks, they don't have to do anything.

 

[Townsend]

Not if you're in the military and under fire in the gulf.

These articles specifically strip you of that right:

Tell me I have the right to pick up my plackard instead of my gun and say, "NO" and not get shot for treason.

Which, by the way, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on illegal orders.

If you have a conscientious objection to the war then you let your command know how you feel. You can be assigned a position as a non combatant as I understand it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes I am...

If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?

You didn't answer the question.

I asked if the children of rich parents should be allowed to avoid service if their parents had money.

Is patriotism and national service based on your bank account?

 

[edward]

They don't PCS people for such short periods...sorry to break it to you dude.

I would expect that someone with any service at all would know the difference between temporary assignments and a PCS.

Oh so now you claim to know how the the Airforce deployed personnel in the Blackbird program in 1968. It was called TDY. And I was most probably doing all of this before you were born.

You are the epitome of one who hoists oneself up on one's own petard.

 

[Townsend]

You didn't answer the question.

I asked if the children of rich parents should be allowed to avoid service if their parents had money.

If their is mandatory service then everyone should be required to participate. If it is voluntary then they should not required to join. If you don't join the military you don't get a lot of the benefits that I currently enjoy. I just want to extend this policy out to more benefits, the ones that people seem to be taking as rights instead of privileges.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Townsend]

Oh so now you claim to know how the the Airforce deployed personnel in the Blackbird program in 1968. It was called TDY. And I was most probably doing all of this before you were born.

You are the epitome of one who hoists oneself up on one's own petard.

So now you say that you were not PCSed 7 times?

I asked you a straight forward question..don't get mad at me because you made a mistake. I am finding it very hard to believe you but that is besides the point. You may have been in the service...I could be wrong about that...what does that change? Nothing except that you would have seen the bases that you claimed. My point is why did you mention stuff that has been going on for years as if it was new? Thats the main reason why I am finding you hard to believe edward.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If you have a conscientious objection to the war then you let your command know how you feel. You can be assigned a position as a non combatant as I understand it.

LOL.

You understand incorrectly then.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17584

Only a small percentage of people who apply receive a CO discharge. But military statistics lag about one year behind, and the decisions on CO applications take on average six months to one year - sometimes as long as two years - so the exact number of COs in the present war will not be known for some time.

The military granted 111 COs from the army in the first Gulf War before putting a stop to the practice, resulting in 2,500 soldiers being sent to prison, says Bill Gavlin from the Center on Conscience and War, quoting a report from the 'Boston Globe' newspaper.

During that war, a number of U.S. COs in Camp LeJeune in North Carolina state were ”beaten, harassed and treated horribly”, Gavlin says. In some cases, COs were put on planes bound for Kuwait, told that they could not apply for CO status or that they could only apply after they'd already gone to war.

As far as Gavlin knows, that type of treatment has not happened this time. But he has counselled service members who were harassed. For example, one woman was told that if she applied for CO status she would be court marshalled. It is not an offence to apply, and her superiors did it, Gavlin says, ”to intimidate her.”

The first group contains ”those who go into the military understanding war and are willing to accept it”, she says. ”But then something happens during their service and they are no longer OK with war.”

The second group contains people who have ”sought out spiritual growth and have come to believe that God doesn't want them to participate in war.”

The third, and biggest, group, she says, is made up of young, often naive, people who join the military in their late teens. They are often poor whites, blacks or Hispanics, who either have limited employment opportunities, or are looking for a way to fund their college education.

Because military recruiters target poor youth in urban centres - the so-called ”poverty draft” - this is probably the fastest-growing group of COs as well as the biggest, added McNeil.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If their is mandatory service then everyone should be required to participate. If it is voluntary then they should not required to join. If you don't join the military you don't get a lot of the benefits that I currently enjoy. I just want to extend this policy out to more benefits, the ones that people seem to be taking as rights instead of privileges.

Does that answer your question?

You just contradicted yourself.

You just said that you received benefits beyond what normal people receive because of your service and that you believe it should be extended.

Well, worry to inform you but it isn't and no matter what you 'think' America doesn't work like that.

Hoist ... meet petard.

 

[Townsend]

LOL.

You understand incorrectly then.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17584

You cannot do it only when a war starts up! You do it way before hand...

It is not a matter of convince for people to avoid having to fight, it is suppose to be used for people who have a problem with wars but still want to serve. Understand?

 

[Townsend]

You just contradicted yourself.

You just said that you received benefits beyond what normal people receive because of your service and that you believe it should be extended.

Well, worry to inform you but it isn't and no matter what you 'think' America doesn't work like that.

Hoist ... meet petard.

What the heck are you talking about? Is english your first language?

I currently receive benefits that I earned by serving. There are other benefits that people get from the government for their education. I think these benefits should be taken away from people who did nothing to earn those benefits and instead should be reserved for people who are willing exchange some kind of service to their community or country to get them.

Where O where did I say anything to the contrary?

 

[SOS2008]

No...I don't believe that you have to support a war that you disagree with. However, serving in the military does not mean that you support the war, it only means that you are serving in the military. You have a right to vote and a right to speak out against this war. You have a right to form organized protest and I encourge you to do so if that's your perspective.



Yeah, I am glad that we have it too.

I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post about the draft, but there is something to the premise of whether an individual should be asked to sacrifice their life for something they don't support or believe in. In regard to mandatory service, what if you were fulfilling your mandatory service during a time when a war is started that you don't support?

Aside from that, I don't feel we have representation at this time. The majority of Americans do not support the war, do not support privatisation of Social Security, do not support open borders/illegal immigration, do not support trade agreements, do not support over-turning of Roe v Wade, and the list goes on and on... But all this has been ignored--there is a major disconnect with the Bush administration (same reason Bush Sr. lost to Clinton).

 

[Townsend]

I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post about the draft, but there is something to the premise of whether an individual should be asked to sacrifice their life for something they don't support or believe in. In regard to mandatory service, what if you were fulfilling your mandatory service during a time when a war is started that you don't support?

Aside from that, I don't feel we have representation at this time. The majority of Americans do not support the war, do not support privatisation of Social Security, do not support open borders/illegal immigration, do not support trade agreements, do not support over-turning of Roe v Wade, and the list goes on and on... But all this has been ignored--there is a major disconnect with the Bush administration (same reason Bush Sr. lost to Clinton).

I voted and had the opportunity to voice my opinion about our elected officials. Sorry if this is not a direct democracy government that you seem to want but you still have representation. Just not direct representation, its more or less like James Madison wanted it to be when he came to the convention with his Virginia plan. The problems we have are small compared to the problems that a direct democracy would bring.

Regards,

 

[BobG]

So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.

The reason I mention Yale is because clearly, Bush didn't belong there and it was 'daddy's money that got him in.

Philosophically, I'd tend to agree with the first statement, but the cost might be higher than my agreement. If I had my druthers, I'd rather fork out for a cheaper school.

I'm not sure what your point is about Bush. He's an isolated example.

Even within his own family, he's not typical. Bush 43 wasn't the first in his family to benefit from a rich, politically connected daddy. Prescott Bush was pretty successful, himself, and Bush 41 benefited a lot from his daddy's success. I wouldn't say Prescott Bush wasted his money. Bush 41 did very well for himself - he was elected President and was a very good President, at that.

Even among losers, Bush 43 is an exception. Normally, daddy wasting his money on his spoiled brat only affects his own family - it isn't taxpayers' money that's at risk. Most of the time, if a rich kid rewards his parents' efforts by becoming an alcoholic and/or drug addict, nobody's going to come along, drag him out of the gutter, and prop him up for President.

I don't have a problem with the government helping people. I don't have a problem with requiring some collateral to protect against a bad investment, either.

The difference is in whose money's at risk. If the wealthy want to risk their money on their kids, they're welcome to it - it's a risk that will probably pay off. If it's taxpayer's money being risked on strangers, they deserve some assurance they'll get something back in return.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You cannot do it only when a war starts up! You do it way before hand...

It is not a matter of convince for people to avoid having to fight, it is suppose to be used for people who have a problem with wars but still want to serve. Understand?

Sorry, it can be used when you fight a war you don't support. (ie. if you believe the war to be illegal or against a principal you hold more dear than the reason for war.)

Enlistment is not a blank check.

 

[Townsend]

Sorry, it can be used when you fight a war you don't support. (ie. if you believe the war to be illegal or against a principal you hold more dear than the reason for war.)

Enlistment is not a blank check.

News to me. Is there any place I can go to find more information about what you are saying? I hope you will understand if I won't simply take your word for it.

 

[Archon]

The question I have to ask is, why are they so poor? There is so much opportunity in this country I just don't understand it. When I was stationed in Lemoore CA I was renting from a Mexican family that came into the US not 15 years ago and now they are very rich. They came with no money and no education. They never needed a hand out because they were willing to work any kind of job and they saved up and well...you get the idea.

Of course this would be the ideal, but most poor Mexican immigrants don't become rich. In fact, many people who begin their lives poor also end their lives poor, not because they are unwilling to work their hardest, but because they start with such a disadvantage that it is difficult even to buy enough food to survive. These are the sorts of people who I believe would be well served by government support. The term handouts is somewhat misleading though, since I don't necessarily believe that people should just be given money: they must demonstrate need and show that they use the money/resources to the fullest potential.

If I thought it would work then I might consider it but I think handouts only perpetuate the problem.

I agree that in many cases, government handouts can do more harm then good. But this is only the case when they are true handouts, with no strings attached and with no requirements for continued assistance.

Consider the following analogy: if your friend asks you to loan him some money so he can get back on his feet after a rough time, you wouldn't refuse him based on the fact that he MUST work for everything he gets. But you wouldn't keep lending him money if you knew that he was wasting it in some way. I believe that ideally, the government would work in much same way.

The skills that are needed to become successful in this country have little to do with a college education. They have to do with work ethic and perseverance. If someone wants to become a doctor they most certainly can and they can do it without any government handouts too.

Again, I disagree. While some (or many) of America's poor are simply lazy, I think that more often, the problem is that they are born into a world that is immediately hostile and forces them to struggle for the basic requirements of life. Many people who work multiple jobs remain poor in spite of this. You can't really argue that such a person is too lazy to advance through society.

And a college eduction is certainly an enormous advantage: it creates opportunities that the uneducated have no access to. College graduates make, in general, more than those who have not graduated from college. Obviously, if you define success based on the amount of money one makes, then college graduates are already more successful than "non-graduates." Furthermore, greater wealth leads almost invariably to a better condition of life. So education would certainly seem to be important.

 

[Archon]

I voted and had the opportunity to voice my opinion about our elected officials. Sorry if this is not a direct democracy government that you seem to want but you still have representation. Just not direct representation, its more or less like James Madison wanted it to be when he came to the convention with his Virginia plan. The problems we have are small compared to the problems that a direct democracy would bring.

Regards,

You seem to have missed the point, which is that, though our government is not a direct democracy, it is still very much based on the desires and will of the people. As SOS is saying, the government has been blatantly ignoring the will of the people on many issues, a policy which I find more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a republic/democracy.

Before anyone panics, though, I'm not actually calling Bush a dictator: I'm merely saying that in many ways, he is not respecting at home the ideals he claims to spread abroad.

 

[Townsend]

Archon

I agree that college is important but my point is that it is not a requirement needed to be successful. I think a big reason why people who have a degree make more than those who don't have a degree is not so much the degree but the person.

What I mean is that the people who have college degrees are willing to work hard and they believe in themselves. While there are a lot of reasons why people may or may not be getting a college degree today, money should not be one of those reasons. If someone wants to go to school most schools will find a way for them to pay for it. And yet, not everyone has a college education...why do you suppose that is?

The people who have a degree are more often than not hard workers who are willing to make sacrifices to succeed. Obviously their degree helps but I think their success has more to do with intestinal fortitude than a piece of paper.

Regards