Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/25/2002 6:09:27 AM EDT
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26197[/url] Thats Civilian Speak For Draft...For You Jarheads...[:)]
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:11:50 AM EDT
"All young men." Hey, that's discrimination.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:38:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:42:30 AM EDT
Conscription is slavery no matter how you slice it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:50:27 AM EDT
My stepfather and father (US Army and USAF in Nam respectively) both agreed that the military does not make a man out of you. It is an excellent opportunity to become a man, but it will not make you a man on it's own. Some people use the structured environment and ability to just follow orders as a way to just coast through a few years without growing up or ever learning to take personal responsibility. Like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. Conscription is a way to get a large military quickly, and not necessarily a quality military. It is not a social panacea... that is just liberal thinking in a candy coating that hawkish conservatives can swallow.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 7:29:46 AM EDT
This reminds me.. If the military suddenly turned to the draft for some reason, how many people do you think would tell them that they're homosexual? What do you think they would do about that? Anything?
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:31:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 8:33:24 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Actually, it sounds like a good idea. It would leave the military with a large pool of boot camp graduates that will need less training to get them up to speed than fresh meat; would offer the chance to instill a bit of real-life discipline into the likes of many whining little children; and, most important, would provide the military with a pool of willing volunteers who already know what its going to be like and want the military life. And libby... It's not slavery. It's paying your country back for the freedom that was given to you and everyone else within its borders. Those who are able, but don't serve in one capacity or another are moochers at best, or whining, selfish little bastages. They could be worse. Many millions have served, suffered injury and died to make it possible for you to be free. And how do you pay them back...? And 9divdoc... Thank God for the the Corpsmen and Medics... Every one of them.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:44:00 AM EDT
In reality, I'm torn on this. The Swiss and the Finns both have mandatory universal (male) conscription. The Finns allow "conscientious objectors" to serve in other civil service. Period of conscription varies, but the shortest period is 1 year. I'm not sure how the Swiss handle it. What does this do? Well, for one thing, it gives the conscript an exposure to the fact that he's a member of a NATION, not just an individual. Military training, even just one year, gives the individual a minimal exposure to firearms; safety, function, familiarity. Itt also gives them a minimal idea of the function of the military and why it exists. In short, it makes them understand that they live in a society worth the effort to preserve, and just what preserving that society might require. This is a good thing. However, in America, we're "free" - free to choose not to be part of anything. Also, if the conscription was anything short of universal, it wouldn't be "fair". Heinlein wrote once: "[blue]No state has the inherent right to survive through conscript troops and in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your shield, or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.[/blue]" He had a point.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:08:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Conscription is slavery no matter how you slice it.
View Quote
You are exactly the kind of child that a little military service could do a lot of good for.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:25:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 9:30:35 AM EDT by trickshot]
Did they learn nothing from VietNam? Maybe they should just reinstate the slave trade instead. Universal conscription is akin to indentured servitude. It is anathema to the ideals of a free society, even in times of war and dire need (neither of which apply currently). I think it is the most absurd, idiotic, foolish, and disrespectful idea ever conceived. Are we free people, in charge of making our own choices without coercion or are we just like the people of the new Socialist States of America? Kennedy introduced the whole idea of asking not what your country can do for you... etc. Right before the US got imbroiled in VietNam, no less. That should tell you something right there. The most recent attempt is a calculated moveto further destroy young peoples' sense of self-determination. You don't turn people into collectivist sheep overnight. What is government for except to serve the people? When it starts asking for too many selfless sacrifices, it's time to start a new government. I do not owe the state anything, certainly not a year of my life! I can get along just fine without the US military or any other government program or agency. Finally, we should not be modelling our country after the Finns or the Swiss, they are [b]socialists[/b]. Building feelings of nationalism or whatever you want to call it is just ceding our individual sovereignty to the beast. It's just another kind of religion, I guess. Nope, no thanks.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 11:01:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 11:01:52 AM EDT by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 12:14:36 PM EDT
I volunteered and served for nearly 13 years in the Navy before a knee injury got me discharged in October 2000. My little brother is in the USAF right now, and my dad served in Nam in the USMC. Not a one of us thinks this is a good idea. If we cannot engender in our young people the desire to serve their country, then the country will fall in the long run. Military indoctrination is NOT the same thing as teaching someone to be truly patriotic, and it is NOT a suitable substitute either. I met plenty of guys in my time in the Navy who came onto active duty as "children", mentally. Most of them left that way as well. The only thing this "program" would accomplish is to further sour another generation on "service", because it isn't really "service" if you're forced into it.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 1:23:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Actually, it sounds like a good idea. It would leave the military with a large pool of boot camp graduates that will need less training to get them up to speed than fresh meat; would offer the chance to instill a bit of real-life discipline into the likes of many whining little children; and, most important, would provide the military with a pool of willing volunteers who already know what its going to be like and want the military life. And libby... It's not slavery. It's paying your country back for the freedom that was given to you and everyone else within its borders. Those who are able, but don't serve in one capacity or another are moochers at best, or whining, selfish little bastages. They could be worse. Many millions have served, suffered injury and died to make it possible for you to be free. And how do you pay them back...? And 9divdoc... Thank God for the the Corpsmen and Medics... Every one of them.
View Quote
Of course YOU'D think it was a great idea. It is slavery. What is slavery? Mariam Webster Defines it as "submission to a dominating influence". Certainly sounds like slavery to me. I pay back the men who died by ensuring that no more die needless deaths, and furthering the cause of liberty. I don't need to go to some hellhole and watch my buddy get his head blown off because some politician thinks we should interfere in somebody's affairs. I'll fight in my own way. If we are invaded or we are attacked by another sovereign country, we'll talk again. Sinistral: Right on!
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 1:58:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: Why not make it a 2yr minimum and at least get some se out of the training they are recieving.
View Quote
T. B. Slayer, even with two years the military does not want the draft. I've seen, I believe two, retired Generals that are now network analyst speak on this subject. Both feel that with a draft about two years is the maximum a citizen should be required to serve and both believed that two years was not long enough to give much benefit to the military. One of the many things I've learned from this board is that the "MEU" Marines had about 18 mos. training. I had no idea their training was so long.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 5:58:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By flashman: Hey libertarians - On the theory that one should know ones enemies, can you identify the authors of these quotes?
View Quote
No sorry, they don't look familiar
Hint - the first one is a noted libertarian intellectual - the second is not. #1 "In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and [b]any of its acts[/b], simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place."
View Quote
Yeah, that comes pretty close to what we think
#2 “Libertarianism is an ideology best suited for young folks. It compellingly tells kids everything they want to be told. Self-interest is not merely indulged; it is sanctified. [i]Experience —— represented either in the traditions accumulated over the centuries or simply in the lessons learned by one's elders [/i]—— has no greater authority than the self-gratifying whims of a single person. In the world of these young libertarians, the utopian future is one where they get to share with the world the full benefit of their [b]inexperience[/b].
View Quote
Ahhh yes, the old "inexperience" argument. Sadly, that has no really basis in fact. A lot of young people are socialistic today. And there are a lot of old libertarians too. Here is a few pictures of some: [img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/photos/sobrans.jpg[/img][img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/lew2.jpg[/img][img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/graphics/rothbardfile2.gif[/img][img]http://www.mises.org/images/2002/top_pic_10.gif[/img][img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/photos/yatess.jpg[/img][img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/photos/edmonds.jpg[/img] They all look pretty "old" to me. The quote I italicized above is what we follow. Experience. We look at history and learn from it. Plain and simple. The end of that sentence is incorrect. We DO place experience above the "self-gratifying whims." Just because it doesn't fit into the "experience" of some people doesn't make it wrong.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 7:01:22 PM EDT
flashman, The quote from Jonah Goldberg appears to fit libby to a "T".
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 7:38:56 PM EDT
This is all well and good, So we raise 30 divisions at the drop of a hat? What the heck are we going to arm them with wooden rifles like before WWII, We can barely supply the Divisions we have right now! Add to that the fact with that level of training it would take upward of a year to get those formations in any kind of shape that the miltary would actualy consider putting them in battle.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 7:53:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:04:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 8:10:14 PM EDT by cmjohnson]
I believe that liberty can't be free. It requires investment and upkeep, like a house, car, ...or wife! The sci-fi author Robert Heinlein put forth an interesting concept in his book Starship Troopers, which was much better than the movie. (But the movie was a fun popcorn flick.) The concept was that military service was strictly voluntary, but you had to serve two years in order to be granted full citizenship which included the right to vote, among other things. Only a full citizen could hold public office, too. It's a pretty sensible concept in my opinion because only those who show the maturity to stick to the program for two or more years, and the willingness to put his butt on the line for the common good, would be allowed to hold office or have a voice in public affairs by their vote. I think I would be in favor of such a system. It grants greater powers to those who are willing to contribute to the defense of society. On a more local level, if the Air Force or Navy wants me, and are willing to offer me a commission, I'll take it no matter what job they have lined up. Supply officer in Alaska, fighter pilot in Florida, whatever... not that it's likely to happen. But I'd sign right now. Oh, yeah...I'd also be in favor of the military removing all age restrictions for service, and instead accept anyone who's mature enough to handle the responsibility and healthy enough to perform his duties properly. I'd also like to see all positions assigned on a competitive testing basis, be they officer or enlisted. If you test high enough to go to officer candidate school, you go, college degree or no college degree. If you test well enough to be a pilot candidate, you go to flight school, again, same thing. The basis of demonstratable aptitude via testing and evaluation should be the ONLY selection criteria for ANY military job. Premium jobs require you to make a tough score cut. Score at the bottom and you get to change lights on the runways or mow lawns. That's what I'd like to see, for sure. CJ
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:14:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:34:12 PM EDT
Conscription = slavery gentlemen. A professional, all volunteer armed forces produces the strongest army. An army of conscripts is cannon fodder. And what right do you, those who support conscription, have to force me in to service?
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:11:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Those who are able, but don't serve in one capacity or another are moochers at best, or whining, selfish little bastages. They could be worse.
View Quote
Everyone who didn't enlist is a "moocher at best" ? You are so wrong dude. Just becuase you chose to go into the military doesn't mean I or anyone else who didn't enlist a moocher.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:25:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:35:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 10:01:19 PM EDT
Defiantly I would have to say that this is not a good idea. I have considered joining the armed forces and think I still will after college. The point is I would never want to have to entrust my life with someone that did not want to be there. It’s just that simple, America dose not need to force here people to serve, when it is needed we will come and serve. Even if we are don’t have the numbers, an army of people that want to be there will always be better than an army of people that would don’t want to be there. - Dustin
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 10:29:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 10:31:14 PM EDT by Juggernaut]
[img]www.mallninja.com/images/unclesam2.jpg[/img] What more can I say? Sinistral and lib86 said it already-conscription is Govt. imposed slavery-and it will get no sweeter for this new attempt. Harsh concept, but none the less true for the grating sound it makes upon impacting a draft supporters' unquestioning jingoism. If neccesary, I will fight to the death to defend the constitution and my beloved country. However, that determination is mine, as a free citizen-not that of a politician. I am grateful to all who served and gave willingly, as I am grateful and apologetic to those who had no choice but to go-and at the same time, without a draft, fewer would have served, fewer would have died-and our nonessential 'interest' Vietnam would be just about like it is now, only maybe less scarred. Thanks, Lincoln- Some of us remember the other part of your great legacy. I guess freeing [i]all[/i] of the slaves wasn't a big concern for a man who needed draftees. Juggernaut
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 10:37:13 PM EDT
It is a great idea. For once, future Liberals will actually get to fire a gun and will begin to understand firearms. If we do this, we could help create a new generation that will respect the 2nd amendment.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 10:45:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2002 10:51:25 PM EDT by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 10:47:39 PM EDT
But, a better idea would be to train all citizens of Military age to fight if necessary and then give every one of them a real Assault Rifle. I think, that we should require all schools to begin firearms and military instruction at around age 6. 6 year olds should be taught to use rifles. Then as they get older, they can be taught tactics and how to use more complex weapons such as grenade launchers and missle launchers. By the time they graduate, they can be proficient with all major small arms such as the M16, M1A, AK-47, etc... Every home a sniper nest.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:23:03 AM EDT
Matt, If you're going to respond to something I said, you need to read the whole quote and make sure that you're actually responding to what i said and not what you [b]thought[/b] I said. For the record you apparently missed the first part of the statement, "Those who are able, but don't serve in one capacity or another..." There's no reference to military service, just service in one capacity or another.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:37:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Matt, If you're going to respond to something I said, you need to read the whole quote and make sure that you're actually responding to what i said and not what you [b]thought[/b] I said. For the record you apparently missed the first part of the statement, "Those who are able, but don't serve in one capacity or another..." There's no reference to military service, just service in one capacity or another.
View Quote
If you are talking to me, I assumed "serve" meant military service, as it is used that way in some situations. Apparently that was a bad assumption. My mistake. Given that, I feel I am serving quite well by spreading the ideals of liberty.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:46:50 AM EDT
Let me get this strait, the government can force people to do things they don't want to? Oh my god, when did this start? That is impossible, what next we out law consensual pedophilia and bestiality?
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:50:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:52:45 AM EDT
There are 2 distinct and separate issues at work here that many have brought up. The first is do men who not want to serve perform worse than those that volunteer? And the second should persons be forced to do things they don't want to? On the first, the answer historically has been there has been little difference in the performance between those who volunteer and those who are drafted into regular unit. If you look at those that fought the Second World War, the majority were drafted, if you factor in those that once they were drafted, decided to enlist at the draft office, you are around 75 percent of the men that fought. And if you look at some of the stats, the war that many want to use as a example of why we shouldn't have a draft, Vietnam, had a higher percent of volunteers fight in it than WWI, II or Korea. Also In reality since advent of the all volunteer force, the rate of premature discharge for those that volunteer has been higher than those that were drafted in the past. On the latter, I think people are already forced to do things they may not want to do. They have to in order to live within societies' mores.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 12:32:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 2:50:07 PM EDT
Here's an idea I would support: "Boot camp" (8 weeks), on a voluntary basis, right out of high school for those who want it. Home in time to register for college in the fall. No further strings attached. I think a LOT of young people would go for something like that, and a LOT of parents would offer suitable "encouragement".
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 4:24:37 PM EDT
Actually, even though alot of people don't know about it, it exists. Some ROTC programs offer a summer Boot Camp for people wishing to decide whether or not to go ROTC. But, Basic Military Training should be available to anyone who wants it. As I said, if we start training them young, by the time they are old enough to fight they will be the best of the best. How about this, we train them in school. Then, when they graduate, they are all trained. Now, they could sign up for 1 year stints since the government wwouldn't need to train them. That is the only reason that most enlistments are 4 years. 2 years if you want to catch bullets. If we could train them and them offer short enlistments, we might get people serving over the summers. As it is, many cannot set aside 8 weeks for Basic, followed by 6 months of Advanced Training. That is why the Guard has all that Alternating Summer stuff. Because, nobody is going to want to spend almost a year on active duty for training if they want to be a reservist.
Originally Posted By BobLocke: Here's an idea I would support: "Boot camp" (8 weeks), on a voluntary basis, right out of high school for those who want it. Home in time to register for college in the fall. No further strings attached. I think a LOT of young people would go for something like that, and a LOT of parents would offer suitable "encouragement".
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:22:12 PM EDT
Forcing someone to into service won't promote patriotism. Why I didn't serve? My visual acuity kept me out of the "higher risk" mil-occupations that I would have liked to pursue. A mutually beneficial remedy exists, but they refuse to contemplate it. Get it corrected? Not allowed. "God" made you this way, so this is the way you stay. Sorry. I didn't want to be a desk jockey. I'm glad I had the option to reply in the negative to that "opportunity". If the military wants/needs patriotic individuals, then it should consider what it is that motivates them. I wasn't all too motivated about my options being limited. If options don't exist, then us lesser, inferior types will move on. At on time, I had hoped to make the military a career, but my options were far too limited by policy. The redundant comment, "...we can't all do what we want," seems to eminate predominantly from those who get to do what they want. The military has diminished itself through its policies and thinking. Meanwhile, technology has progressed. Those of us who were turned away have moved on. Opportunity missed. Cry in your soup.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:46:56 PM EDT
I don't think this is being understood. That fact is WE WILL NEED IT. PRETTY SOON LESS THEN 2 YEARS away I would guess. When in Wartime the Time limit will be null and void. I think they should start it now. It will save lives, if they do. Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:30:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Forcing someone to into service won't promote patriotism. Why I didn't serve? My visual acuity kept me out of the "higher risk" mil-occupations that I would have liked to pursue. A mutually beneficial remedy exists, but they refuse to contemplate it. Get it corrected? Not allowed. "God" made you this way, so this is the way you stay. Sorry. I didn't want to be a desk jockey. I'm glad I had the option to reply in the negative to that "opportunity". If the military wants/needs patriotic individuals, then it should consider what it is that motivates them. I wasn't all too motivated about my options being limited. If options don't exist, then us lesser, inferior types will move on. At one time, I had hoped to make the military a career, but my options were far too limited by policy. The redundant comment, "...we can't all do what we want," seems to eminate predominantly from those who get to do what they want. The military has diminished itself through its policies and thinking. Meanwhile, technology has progressed. Those of us who were turned away have moved on. Opportunity missed. Cry in your soup.
View Quote
Edited to correct spelling.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 11:38:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 11:41:16 PM EDT by Francisco_dAnconia]
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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:39:47 AM EDT
Fransisco , I to am an Objectivist, However. You are wrong. You can't look at anything from a societal level. The only way that you get Homosexual activism is if a homosexual wants to bring it up. The only way you get detrimental effects is for it to have a detrimental effect. I ask you to look at the Post WWII generation from 46-65?? Most were conscriptionist. Those people have done a hell of a lot of work and are responsible for a large amount of the wealth produced to this day. I once saw motion picture about the GI BILL. There was this college kid who was trying to get the GI to wear some stupid club hat for the college. The GI just laughed in his face and went about his business. Don't worry about the social implications of this or that. Chances are they don't exist in anything other than some liberal professors imagination. Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:16:52 AM EDT
doesn't china have universal military service? it might be a good idea, if............ and there are a lot of if's... this could be a great idea, but with current government directives, i can see no good comeing of this..
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 2:29:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Fransisco , I to am an Objectivist, However. You are wrong. You can't look at anything from a societal level. The only way that you get Homosexual activism is if a homosexual wants to bring it up. The only way you get detrimental effects is for it to have a detrimental effect. I ask you to look at the Post WWII generation from 46-65?? Most were conscriptionist. Those people have done a hell of a lot of work and are responsible for a large amount of the wealth produced to this day. I once saw motion picture about the GI BILL. There was this college kid who was trying to get the GI to wear some stupid club hat for the college. The GI just laughed in his face and went about his business. Don't worry about the social implications of this or that. Chances are they don't exist in anything other than some liberal professors imagination. Benjamin
View Quote
Well, I'm not an Objectivist, but I'll try to respond as best I can. All government actions and programs have benefits and costs and unintended consequences in the moral, economic, and cultural arenas. Only one or two other people even addressed the economic and cultural effects and costs so I attempted to point out some of them. To not even consider the cultural effects is simply ludicrous. To properly consider the economic effects it is not sufficient to say that this group of people was drafted for WWII and they worked hard once they returned home. You must ask "what will happen if there is no conscription" and "what will happen if there is conscription" and then compare your results. Even this analysis will be incomplete and inaccurate due to the limitations of human reasoning and where the law of unintended consequences strikes. I offer the welfare state as an example of why the economic and cultural effects of government programs should be studied. I also offer the public school system and the military's consideration-of-others training as evidence that activists of all stripes will attempt to use the government to indoctrinate the draftees.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 3:12:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 3:14:51 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Fransisco Wrote:
All government actions and programs have benefits and costs and unintended consequences in the moral, economic, and cultural arenas. Only one or two other people even addressed the economic and cultural effects and costs so I attempted to point out some of them. To not even consider the cultural effects is simply ludicrous. To properly consider the economic effects it is not sufficient to say that this group of people was drafted for WWII and they worked hard once they returned home. You must ask "what will happen if there is no conscription" and "what will happen if there is conscription" and then compare your results. Even this analysis will be incomplete and inaccurate due to the limitations of human reasoning and where the law of unintended consequences strikes. I offer the welfare state as an example of why the economic and cultural effects of government programs should be studied. I also offer the public school system and the military's consideration-of-others training as evidence that activists of all stripes will attempt to use the government to indoctrinate the draftees.
View Quote
Indoctrinate. Draftees a most likely Indocrtrinated to one degree only. YOUR ARSE IS MINE.. THIS IS YOUR RIFLE... FOLLOW ME.... Talking merely of the draft without respect to the context in which it might be taking place? I don't know. What you say is true in that all government actions have consequences. Just further it a little and say all actions have consequences period. From many different angles. However, I give the least weight to the cultural arena as it were. I understand that you can look at it from that point of view but I don't know to what extent and how sweeping the cultural ramifications would be. For instance, teenagers spend a great deal of their parents money and sometimes their own on making themselves LOOK and fit a certain IDEA. Hence the baggy jean warren ones who go around looking stupid. However, once out from under the protective umbrella of their parents they have a tendency to throw away excess garbage as it limits them in their attainment of wealth and that which supports their life. The only places I see CULTURISM of that type on TV. I don't see any other culture variations with possible exception to racial culture differences. So my question is What scope does your use of the word "Culture" have?? Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 3:46:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Heinlein wrote once: "[blue]No state has the inherent right to survive through conscript troops and in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your shield, or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.[/blue]" He had a point.
View Quote
Can you name a state that has survived without conscripts in the long run? [;)] Yup. There are none. Cute quote though. Freedom is not free. Those that are not prepared to fight for freedom will lose it. -Velveeta
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:25:32 PM EDT
I think that it would be possible to greatly increase the attractiveness of military service with a few reasonable changes: (Yes, these will mostly take acts of Congress) Increase authorized force strength by a large factor. Provide generous across-the-board pay raises to every rank from E-1 to O-11. The pay must be genuinely competitive with what's available in the civilian market, and no serviceman's income should EVER be withing sight of the poverty line. If we lose ONE pilot to a sweeter deal by an airline, it's proof that we need to give our pilots more. I'd like to see the airlines losing pilots to the Air Force! Provide enhancements to the retirement packages and to the benefits packages. Get authorization to remove inactive reserve equipment from inactive status, refurbish and repair it as necessary, and put it back in service. Granted, much of this equipment is not state-of-the-art, but it can be used for training and proficiency exercises. All those new members are going to need equipment to do their jobs with, right? They also need a place to do it. Re-activate as many bases worldwide as necessary to do the job, even if that means taking back facilities that were handed over to the civilian government...starting with the Presidio. Let those Chinese rent somewhere else! This would also be a big boost to the economy. Creating so many jobs and so much need for replaceable products and materials would give many companies a great opportunity to hire people and make them look busy. Further enhancement to new enrollments: All service is voluntary. While there is a contract to be adhered to, make it easier to get out if the serviceman truly isn't happy. Make an effort to re-assign him first. Remove all prior academic requirements for high skill tasks. (Your college degree isn't important anymore) Instead, every candidate is selected by testing his abilities. Those who pass with a sufficiently high score get the job, if it's currently open. Applies to everyone, officer and enlisted. A high school dropout COULD walk in, take a series of tests and evaluations, and go right into pilot training. If he scored well enough. That's what I think. CJ
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:33:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 6:39:46 PM EDT by NODDAH]
*****You guys are all missing the boat.******* Any future draft will have to include women. We live in a time of equality and if they draft men only that is sexist and descrimination. I was in the Army for 4 years. I can't wait for a draft to backfire and backlash at those "NOW" goof balls! [;)]
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:34:52 PM EDT
I have been in the Army for seven years and think that conscription is a bad idea. There is already allot of dirtbags that dont want to be here, I can imagine with the draft. American kids are allot different then the last time there was a draft. Notice how many were banging on the door after Sep 11. Very few. Also remember the military is now kinder and gentler. With things like stress cards and another week added to Army basic for sensitivity training, its hardly going to make men out of the nintendo generation.
Top Top