HR 3598

[URL]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598:[/URL]

WOW a conscripted term of service.
just like any other communist country.


to bad it's not equal.
boys and girlies should both be forced to serve.

Good.

It's military training, not necessarily mandated service.

The more people out there that have some type of military service (even training), the better.

Most states with "shall issue" CCW permits accept military training in place of the BS gun safety class.  These can cost upwards of several hundred dollars, and are not available in some areas.

Personally, I would wholeheartedly support such a proposal.

Requiring young men to perform a minimum of one year of military service to our country has multifaceted benefits.

Our country is now and will in it's future be more dependent on military might than ever before.  We must stay strong and we must stay ready to fight/defend at a moments notice.  This can only be accomplished by instituting plans such as this bill, training our people and requiring something more out of Joe Average.  Additionally, it provides much needed training to a generation that quite frankly, I worry about a lot.  Young men (and women) need the direction, discipline and maturity that the military can put into them.  

Sure, most people won't make a career out of it.  Many may actually hate every minute of it.  But it is designed to provide education and training to our citizens and will give every person involved something that they can build on to be stronger, wiser, smarter and more disciplined than they could become get any other way.

It is assanine to think that we can continue to be a world power and to be able to protect our selves and our interests in the face of ever increasing dangers by simply sitting back and letting someone else do the grunt work for us.

Millions have benefited from the sacrifices of the few for decades in the US.

It is time everyone ponied up.

Very interesting.  I've thought for a long time that society would benefit from more people having served at least some time in the armed forces.  Many young people lack the focus and discipline that the military can provide.  It's just a year, instead of 4, so that might be easier for some people to swallow.  Living in Arcata (Berkeley Junior, for those who don't know), I can't wait till all the ultra-liberals up here get wind of this.  Should be fun to watch the sparks fly.

I DO NOT support any type of bill that would mandate military service or training.

Let the people that are willing to volunteer for the military get training and let them serve.

I for one have no desire to join the military. Nor do I want to waste a year of my life in "training". I have better things to do, like make money at my job.

Av.

NOT.....a flame Avalon.............. but I'd venture to guess that you certainly don't mind reaping the benefits of a country with a strong military.

Nor, I think, would you mind sitting at home all cozy and warm while some other kid makes the sacrifice of time, energy and possibly life and limb in order to protect that which you profess to hold dear.

Certainly, you do have a right to your opinion and yours need not be the same as mine.  

Consider though, that all those volunteers you speak of suddenly started feeling like you.  Consider that all they were interested in was their take from life and nothing more.

Where would we be then?

Desire is not part of the equation.



[b][i]You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dream might be[/i][/b]

yeah, except, I'm more concerned what liberal, whiney, smart guy, know it all's will do to the military, than hopeful about what the military would do to them.

Sorta like saying "You never invite every kid in the neighborhood to your party huh"

You just had to through that in there did'nt you?

Maybe the military would whip their asses and we'd all be better off.

Problem is that conscripts will be used for things other than defense. "peace keeping" etc.

I'm sure most of the folks posting here who are not involved in the military will be more than glad to step up to the plate when there is a clear danger to our country.

Interesting theory. I would hate to see you "waste" a year of your life. $$ is more important than country I guess. It's that type of attitude we can do without.

Personally they should make it 2 years not 1.

Mandatory, I'd vote no.

I'd rather have a bill saying each house must have a current issue machine gun with appropriate ammo.   Plus a nearby range to practice.  

Enjoy the freedoms that others have provided for you. Typical sorry ass American. I want, I want, gimmie, gimmie, gimmie, me, me, me. "What you mean I could lose all this?, quick send someone to fight for my right to have a BMW!"

People in the military sacrifice their time, energy and possibly life and limb, and they get compensated for it. Are you in the military? If so, what pay grade are you? Ever heard of the GI bill? The $250,000 life insurance policy, the free medical care, the retirement plan, hazard pay, off base food and housing stipend, cheap food in the commissary, cheap stuff in the exchange, traveling to foriegn countries free of charge?
These are the compensations you get for the sacrafices you make.

You know what they say. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Think about it put someone in the service that doesn’t want to be there. I saw that allot back about 31 yrs ago.
On the other hand like in Israel you do your 1yr and that’s it. There are many opportunities out there in the service now. Yes you run certain risks in time of conflict. There are benefits you might understand now. I'm not talking about discipline. Think about VHA if you want to buy a house later in life.
See if some of our farther’s and there farther’s didn't serve we would not be having a discussion like this. They gave us our freedom to chose and those who serve keep it alive for us today. Say thanks to a Vet the next time you see one.

NO WAY!!!!!

I'm in the military and personally I don't want to work next to somebody that doesn't want to be there.  ?I'M SUPPOSED TO TRUST MY LIFE WITH THIS PERSON?  There's already enough sorry bitches in the military that are bitter about joining and say that their recruiter screwed them.  However, ultimately you can say to them "hey, you signed on the dotted line.  Now shut up and color!"  

QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY!

Think about what you're supporting before you support it.  I'm glad I joined the service.  I love the person it's made me.  But it's not for everyone.

Heaven forbid that one might have to do something to contribute to the freedoms that we enjoy.  Stop your whining.  My generation endured 2 years mandatory service and we did quite well, thank you.  Typical DU type of attitude.  So you must consider those veterans of us who "wasted" 2 to 4 years or more to protect your freedom so you could "make money at my job" as some kind of low lives.  You pantywaist.  You must be a Clinton loving Democrat.

You Democrat. Tinfoil hat on too tight?  And it is "too" not "to" you illiterate puke.

[cleaned up personal atack a bit - Paul]

You don't have a clue.  Military pay never comes close to compensating you for the sacrifices you make.  "Cheap stuff in the exchange" doesn't come close to make up the difference in pay.  It's cheap because that's all military people can afford.  I love it when morons who don't have any idea make statements like this.  I am a veteran and I know what it is like.  Ask my ex-wife what it is like as a military family, you idiot.

COMPENSATION?  I should scan my W2 from '97-'01 where I just broke 10K on on the year.  

Geez LarryG, calm down. If you disagree there are better ways to say it than getting all flustered. I guess I'll go climb back in my hole now. [:)]

Ever heard the saying, "Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics[;)]

[cleaned up personal atack a bit - Paul]

GUYS...cool your jets and let's not tear each other up.

Mandatory conscript service?
More often than not, it lessens the quality and morale. Israel is the exception, only because the populace at large is already highly driven and motivated to serve and protect the homeland.
That phenomenon is one we may never see happen in the U.S.A.

I strongly agree with "doorgunner84" on this issue. Our military is [despite Klinton's FUBAR'ing] still highly capable and professional and I'm proud of it.
Let's not degenerate it by drafting losers at large. Morale counts, doesn't it??

I am disappointed to not see mentioned anywhere on this thread:
WHERE DOES OUR MUCH VAUNTED MILITIA COME INTO THIS????

Until the federal government recognizes and acknowledges the value and right of existence of militias to protect our homeland, I will be against any mandatory draft or conscription of civilians.
If militias existed as intended by the founders, there would be little need or justification for having to force men to serve in the first place.
The biggest problem with that is all armed and trained men fall under one central command or CIC. Not a good thing in a "Constitutional Republic".

My two centavos...

That is what freedom is!  I have a hard time swallowing orders from people who feel that they can make decisions that cold adversely affect my life. Nor would I want that for my children.  We have had a draft once and we saw what that did to the quality of the military.

This is what freedom is, as long as "I or my children don't have to contribute to it".

This would be all fine and dandy if we were in a situation where there was a constant threat to america. Say an ongoing war with the front moving towards our territory. Although if you watch the news it may seem that we have that now, that is mostly a sham (see 1984, constant state of war maintained as an excuse to do a whole lot of nice stuff).

All this would do is greatly expand the already bloated fed and give the bastards more resources for meddling in the affairs of other nations. Not to mention a good opportunity to indoctorinate young minds.

We don't need to force anyone to play soldier. The unorganized militia will be more than enough to "defend the homeland" when the time comes. Sounds like you guys who are raving about how great this would be are all for freedom, except when freedom means choosing to do some "pussy" desk job instead of playing soldier.

Here, here, M4C.  I totally agree

Many companies will pay your tuition, or a large part of it, as long as it's a work-related class and you maintain a certain grade. The GI Bill isn't really that much better, considering what you have to give in order to get it.



That you pay for, albeit at a very low rate, and you can't get loans against the policy like you can with most insurance policies.



You mean the "here's a 7-day no running or marching profile and a prescription for Motrin, pick it up at the pharmacy on your way back to duty"? I had knee problems looked at by 1/2 dozen military doctors, and none of them came up with the same diagnosis. I did have a sebaceous cyst removed from my back with little to no scarring, though.



If you do your 20 that's fine, but if you get RIFd at 17 years due to an Article 15 or DUI back when you were a PFC, then what? You don't deserve anything because they retroactively changed the rules?



Consider how many jumps an airborne trooper makes per month, just to earn that $110 extra. I bet he could make a lot more delivering pizza 3 nights a week. Of course, nobody jumps out of planes solely because it means an extra $110 per month, but when you figure in how many times you get back in at 0300 and still have to work the next day, it kinda loses its appeal.



That still leaves you quite a bit below the poverty level in most places.



Cheaper stuff at Wal-Mart, Sam's, BJ's, etc.



And not having time to enjoy your tour because you're spending at least 4-6 months per year in the field, and the other 6-8 months per year training up for the field or maintaining equipment you beat up during those field exercises. Then there's duty such as evaluating another unit during its annual exeval, running stations at the divisional EFMB/EIB course, etc - and let's not forget rotations in the former Yugoslavia! I've always LMAO at people who make an overseas tour sound like a Price is Right showcase vacation.



Don't get me wrong, the 12 1/2 years I spent on active duty did more for me than anything else I can imagine going through and helped forge me into the good man I consider myself to be, but the pittances you mentioned don't begin to compensate you for what you have to put up with. I put up with the heat, cold, thirst, long hours, and fatigue because I truly loved being in the field, not because the paycheck and fringe benefits made it all worthwhile. The last thing I would have wanted is some kid who's riding out his mandatory 1 year dragging ass and making the rest of my section have to work that much harder, not to mention making me spend time to discipline him that I could be using to train my section, groom my SPCs for their CPL/SGT stripes, and get myself a rocker or 2 as well. Retention will suffer, because troops who normally would stay in will get out so they don't have to deal with the punks off the street, and I figure you'd see NCO and officer retention rates drop as well.

(cont'd)

[edited to correct a mistake]

And what about economy? This 1-year kid will probably spend 2-4 weeks at the fat farm before going to basic training for 2 months (unless they relax the physical standards), and at least another 6-8 weeks in AIT - that's a minimum of 4-5 months gone out of his 1 year right there. That's a pretty big initial investment with a very small return - kinda like calling a $3.95/initial minute-$0.90/each additional minute psychic hotline, and hanging up and redialing every 3 minutes. All that money will have to come from someplace, and that's most likely from training/maintenance budgets (the same place most peacekeeping funds come from.)

Call me soft, but I think you have a more effective military if the troops all joined up because they wanted to and not because they had to. I've had more than a few soldiers who wanted nothing more than to finish their time and get out, but for the most part they pulled their weight - even the potheads that got chaptered. But short of bringing back things like CCF and School of the Soldier to punish and rehabilitate the real troublemakers, I don't think you'd be able to turn the average kid straight outta high school into a soldier in a year, especially with mommy and daddy writing their Congressman every time Their Little Baby whines about something in a letter....er, e-mail home.

First off
7 in Switzerland where everyone has a machinegun they have all been part of the mandatory military service and have gone through it before the weapons are issued and then they are required to be a member of the militia until age 65

For those out there that think we are compensated for what we do you obviously haven't served and thanks to bill Clinton now you pay for your medical on an HMO style plan new enlistees that go in and serve 20 years and "retire at 38" will not see any retirement money until they hit 55 WTF.  
When I was TDY to Kuwait I saw conscript service first hand the conscripts didn't have any rank only people that enlisted for longer than the two year mandatory service.  If this was to happen in the states the conscripts should not hold any combat arms positions just the support roles ie. Cooks clerks.  
just my .02 cents worth

ps to all the people basking in the sun in the desert day in and day out so these other pussies can earn big bucks thanks.  And I am sorry that any married E-1 through E-4 have to have food stamps to survive.
john

I don't mean officers giving orders I am talking about the political types saying...son after you graduate high-school your life will go on hold for 1 year unless something happens.. I fail to understand the idea that if I am not in the armed services then I don't know what freedom is or that I am not contributing to it.  I sure as hell won't go into the military to go and have my ass sent to Bosnia or any other place for "UN peace keeping".

Compensated!?!  I don't know quite how to respond to this. I don't think you really understand just how crappy military "compensation" is.

I need to pony-up?!?  More needs to be required from me?!?  I'm already working for the federal government a quarter to a third of each year due to income, social security, medicare, etc. taxes.  (That does [i]not[/i] include state and local taxes.)  At least on this plan I get most evenings and weekends off.  But this isn't good enough, I must be forced to give more, not just money, but a year of my life on the mere possibility that the training will ever be needed.

Who in God's name are you to force me or anyone else into the military because you just know that it will be good for me?  There are a lot of government/social/economic systems out there premised on the idea that Joe Average does not know what is best for him and the elite do; these systems are universal failures.  If I believe that the military is the best course for my life, I will try it.  If not, I won't.

This was covered a couple of weeks ago on the thread "[url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=89465]Congress Considers A New- Kinder- Conscription[/url]."  I'll just copy my post from there for those who see benefits but do not appear to have even considered the costs.
--------
Aside from the question of whether this plan is moral and ethical, consider the economic and cultural effects this will have.

Immediate economic effects will be the disappearance of young men away from jobs and school and then their reappearance a year later, an increase in taxes, and a decrease in investment money from government borrowing. This can be expected to throw the economy (deeper) into recession as families, people, employers, and schools and colleges learn to cope with the disappearance and reappearance of fathers/brothers/sons, friends, employees, and students and the changed monetary environment. In the longer term the taxes and borrowing will be a constant drag on the economy, employers will be wary of hiring young men who haven't done their service, and many people will retire at the same age they would have otherwise, thereby depriving themselves and the economy of a years work.

Immediate effects on the cultural front will be young grooms and fathers pulled away from their wives and families and many other ways of being split from family, friends, fiancees, etc. I expect that long term people will marry, start families, start college, and start careers a year later than they would otherwise. For the next 50+ years, until the last of those who were not required to serve die off, there will be a major cultural rift between those who served and those who didn't. As those who did serve reach retirement age, they have a dilemma as to whether they should retire at the same time they would have otherwise or work longer to make up for the lost wages. If they choose to retire at the same time they must live the rest of their life on reduced funds and have less to pass on to their children. If they choose to work longer they will have less time to enjoy their retirement.

I also suspect that the service will evolve over time into something very tame and very unlike the America we want to see. In the first place women's lib, special homosexual rights activists, news media, etc., etc. will continuously push to get the government to indoctrinate the draftees with their twisted worldviews. Secondly, draftees can be expected to want to take as few chances as possible and work as little as possible.

Another possibility is that some politicians will think "Look at all these pre-trained people we have to back up the military. To heck with small stuff like Kosovo and Somalia and Haiti. We can do something BIG." 'Something BIG' will of course make Vietnam look like a cake-walk.

In short, this plan will have massive and ongoing detrimental economic and cultural effects. America is not currently involved in a war that requires these types and levels of sacrifices and should not implement this plan on the possibility that a war which will require these sacrifices shows itself in the near future.

I just realized that there appears to be no exemption for physical disability!  Section 8b provides for a postponement or deferment for this, but what about permanent disability?

All the more reason we should have local militias as the solution.
All volunteer, all strictly for the purpose of defense.
No government funded nor government [i]controlled[/i] civilian forces.
We already have our US armed forces which are very capable and federally controlled as it should be.
No drain on the national economy and and makes each and every community [that oversees its own militia] safer.
[size=5]WHAT IS 'HOMELAND SECURITY' ALL ABOUT ANYWAY?????[/size=5]

[size=4]IT'S THE CITIZEN'S MILITIA.[/size=4]

Interesting theory.  I guess we can do without people engaging in productive labor;  we don't really need their taxes to support a military (and military budget) ten times larger than today's.  Better that uppity folks like him be forced to learn to march, perform maintenance on tanks, sleep in barracks, and follow orders.

Oh, lets see.  The 13th amendment outlaws social slavery...hmmm.  Oh, I get it.  If it violates the 13th, its "okay" and "necessary"...if it violates the 2nd, its baaaad.

As an 18 year old burger flipper, joining the military was the best thing that happened to me 24 years ago.  A year of military training would do the 18 year old kids in this country a world of good.  It would be a year away from MTV and their skate boards....boo hoo...!

Conscription is slavery, it's simple as that. If people want to join up, they are free to do so. We've never had a problem with a lack of people stepping when the country needs it, and frankly the days where wars can be fought and won by poorly trained conscripts is past. This is the 21st, not the 20th. We need highly motivated, highly trained soldiers.

The military doesn't make a man out of you automatically. It is a good opportunity to become one, but you delude yourself if you think it's a cure-all.

If you really feel that the youth of today should have military training, then how about we include mandatory basic training of some sort in high school, like at the junior and senior levels? Teach marksmanship, PT, et cetera.

Some of us, by no means all, have screaming for a "Militia" and we'll have one - one massive militia.

There is only modest military benefit here - a group of perhaps 30% trained quasi-soldiers/sailors(?) - maybe could be used as a delaying force until the real gets there - some would fight well instinctively.
Most effective use would be as a revival of the old "Conservation Corps" - public works building type stuff.

The "MILITARY" does not want a draft.  Even with two years service there's not enough "post-training" time remaining for the military to achieve a decent return.
I was surprised to learn that the "MEU" Marines had more than (18) MONTHS TRAINING !!

So what's possibly behind this deal ??

If each year we delay entry into the workforce of "XXX" million young men and women then we've done something instantly about the unemployment numbers - and in a 'somewhat' real way.

The country mostly feels good about its' sacrifice - participation by the civilian population in 'sacrificing' something is essential for long term cohesion.  (Ex.  WWII - coffee was purposely restricted by "ration stamps" even though there was no real shortage.)

Oh, when the discharged veteran(?) reports to the college, work-place, etc., to begin the next phase there's at a more mature person standing there plus a person who had to have learned some things of value from the military service.

Stupids - I'm guessing it would be for the
economy !
[:D]

Spearwweasel/anyone,
I've made my argument as to what I believe might be really happening above but wanted to get yours and other responses by extending your question.

"Conscription is slavery.."

But if applied equally to all is then conscription slavery ?   [?]

(I'm asking in the pure and theoretical only - I realize "applied equally to all" is a huge qualifier.)

I think a better approach would be to improve pay and benefits to military personel, especially those who are or have been in combat, and at the same time tighten up the standards for admission. Not just a small increase in pay, a BIG one. Make it lucrative. Those who can't cut it with the new standards can find other ways of doing mandatory service, even if not in an armed force. We need a strong dedicated military, and the sacrifices of those who participate should be justly rewarded. It should be a point of honor to even qualify to serve. Those f*ckin hippies spitting on the vets returning from Vietnam really pissed me off!!!

The point is that he should learn what it is to give to your country, not just recieve. Maybe after he learns what it is to give he'll learn that the "freedoms" he has "earned" will mean much more.

After he learns firsthand that "FREEDOM IS NOT FREE" then he can go and roll in his pile of $$.

This plan would drag down the U.S. military, IMO.  Would a 1 year conscript make a good soldier?  The 1 year mandatory service would probably be looked at by 17/18 year olds as the "13th grade" or "mandatory P.E.".  Sure, some - maybe even most - of the conscripts would make good soldiers, but what about the "bad apples"?  For example, who wants to fight/work alongside someone who is an unmotivated soldier and who's lack of work ethic may cost the lives/safety of others?  Who would volunteer for a military where that sort of thing goes on?  

Also, consider the already terrible military pay rates.  The reason military pay/benefits have improved since vietnam is because the military is all volunteer and therefore must compete with the civilian job market.  A four year college grad with an engineering degree can make 44k/year starting pay coming straight out of college (at least before the recession started).  The military can't match that - an O-1 makes about 22k/year and an E-4 (standard paygrade for enlisted with degree) make only 17k/year.  Neither comes close to the aforementioned 44k/year.  Even school teachers, who do a damn important job but are underpaid, usually make at least 30k/year around here.  Why the hell shouldn't someone who puts their life on the line for their country not be given better pay/treatment?  Our military deserves better as it is. But, by bringing in the thousands (if not millions) of conscripts the military would have to dilute its pay/benefits to stay within budget, thus the already low pay /family benefits would drop even further.  

And, as someone aleady mentioned, whats the point of sending someone through 9 weeks BCT, 4 weeks AIT (assuming infantry) leaving only 7 or 8 months of retention in the service?  

Rather than conscription, why not raise the militarys budget?  Increase pay/benefits and upgrade housing to attract more of the best and brightest, obtain better equipment, etc.  Also, why should conscription even be considered to teach disipline/values to 17/18 year olds?  Thats their parents job, and if they don't have at least some semblence of those values by the time they're 18 (technically adulthood), then perhaps they never will.  Personally, I would feel more pride and motivation serving in a military where everyone was there because they wanted to be, not because they were forced to be.

Every time this comes up, there is a great realization of how much it costs to have mandatory service. Even if the government doesn't pay the conscripts one dime, it is too expensive. This dies every time.

I believe in two things. First, the military should compete in pay scale just like everyone else. Second, just like Virginians, have every man show-up with their rifle for target practice after church.

"Imagine an army of 100,000 young people restoring urban and rural commuinities and giving their labor in exchange for education and training.  [National Service] will harness the energy of our youth and attack the problems of our time.  It literally has the potential to revolutionize the way young people all across America look at their country and feel about themselves." -- Bill Clinton

"I'm here because I want to redefine the meaning of citizenship in America. . . .  [I]f you're asked in school, 'What does it mean to be a good citizen?' I want the answer to be, 'Well, to be a good citizen, you have to obey the law, you've got to go to work or be in school, you've got to pay your taxes and -- oh yes, you have to serve. . . ." -- Bill Clinton

"In his April 5 radio address outlining the goals of the summit, the President endorsed compulsory volunteerism -- and even called for extending it to middle schools.  In other words, the man who so famously avoided the dangerous duty of fighting in Vietnam as a young man now proposes drafting a new generation of oung people to perform a different set of difficult tasks." -- New York Post editorial, April 27, 1997