A NY democrap is planning on introducing a bill that would make military service mandatory, but didn't give any details.  He also said that doing so would make congress "less willing" to go to war.

I think it’s a dumb idea; by making service mandatory, all that is going to be acomplished is that the "elite" will get out of service, and other objectors will leave the country (ala slick-willie's trip to oxford, and all the draft dogers heading to canada) while those who object but cannot get out of service will only drag down the effectiveness and morale of the armed services.  What do ya'll think?

-FOTBR

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/index.html[/url]



edited 'cause I'm and idjit and forgot the "/" in /quote and to make the URL active ... DOH!

Only a dumbshit democrat would even think of such a stupid proposition.  This would be about as bad of a decision as shooting S&B ammo through an unfired pre-ban Colt!  Seriously though, I think the only thing that mandatory military service would accomplish is a weakening of and demoralization inside our Armed Forces on all levels. [rolleyes]

I dunno. I have oft thought that mandatory service for a 2-year term right out of highschool would be just the thing that would kick this nation back into shape. It's commonplace in many western nations.

I know that if I had to do it over again, besides screwing all the average looking girls in high school and not wasting any time on the snotty hotties, I would have greatly benefitted from a couple of years in at least some PT Guard duty.

I agree with you [b]BenDover[/b] that it would do the country some good, but tend to believe that it would unnecessarily burden our military.

I have thought about this myself. BUT ONE CONDITION... Let the Israelis show them how its done because:

A. They have been doing it for years
2. All my cousins that live there (21 of them) did it and LOVED it.
D. It will teach alot of these misguided kids (From the parents of Dr. Spocks school of how to raise your child like a fucking imbocile) how to act like a DECENT SELF RESPECTING HUMAN BEING.

Perhaps the Robert Anson Heinlein approach? As in "Starship Troopers"?

Scott

Ben
 While I agree there are more than a few punks who could use the dicipline, I think the effect on morale from having all the idiots who don't really want to be there would definitly not be worth it.

-FOTBR

HEY!!!!!  Don't be insulting Spock!  (or is there another Spock besides the one from Star Trek?)  [;D]

FOTBR

I tend to agree with Ben on this one.

Although not all kids are cut out to be in the military, they could have an alternative...hospital, conservation work, whatever. A 2 years hitch.

In a wheelchair? Tango Sierra. We'll put you to work if your hands work.

Daddy the big shot tries to get you out of it? An automatic 6 years hitch!


Also, you'd be stationed AT LEAST 1000 miles from home. That way you'd get to see how the other half lives.

And let's do away with the PC crap. Teach some of these kids to 'do it and STFU!

It'd do a world of good to a lot of young people.

The difference is that the Israelis are dependent on this system for survival as a nation, whereas the U.S. is not. I do think it would be a good thing to have mandatory military service though, I went through mandatory service in Sweden, and I followed it up with volunteer deployment in Bosnia.

If for some reason it does pass, I like that idea!



Exactly what PC crap are you talking about (not that I'm opposed to getting rid of all remnents of PC)?



No argument there, but would it be worth destroying morale in the armed forces to do it?

FOTBR

Now that I think about, we [b]DO[/b] have "mandatory service". It is the Second Amendment, and it means that all fit Americans are serving. Or should be. IS his proposal maybe to adopt the Swiss plan? Give us all M16s and have regular set amounts of yearly training?

[b][size=6][red]COOL!!!!![/red][/size=6][/b]



Scott

This is still a somewhat free country.  As long as it is, military service should be voluntary unless we are at war.  There are still plenty of our citizens who are willing to defend our country without being forced.

USPC40


[img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=476[/img]
[url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

[img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=469[/img]

The "whiney-assed, cry-babies" don't end up in the armed forces, they find a way to stay out. Many draftees fought and died bravely for this country in more than one war.

I think the quality of an all volunteer force is way better than a conscript force.  It's easier to get something done when someone actually wants to be where they are.  I can justify conscription when there is a forseen shortage of troops, but otherwise the general quality would be lower during peacetime.

I had a high school teacher who lived in Germany for awhile.  She said you had an option of military service or public service.  She chose public service.  She spent her time working in a public hospital taking care of people who were too ill to care for themselves.  We got to hear alot of horror stories of these patients in that class!

Rangle wants to draft people but not for the military. One thing that would really fire up the anti-war types and regular guys alike is the prospect of mandatory service, and exposure to danger. It would be the damn Vietnam draft resistor/protestor situation all over again. And just imagine what the racial grievance industry would do with it! Wow! Plus which the military gets saddled with thousands of unwilling members bringing all the discipline and moral problems of the early and mid seventies right back. Keep the unwilling OUT. Wasn't the idea of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of Reserves supposed to do what Rangle says hes after? Careful well reasoned military action with the full support of the people? Well, no not really because theyre (were) volunteers too, and that s not what hes after anyway! He needs millions of nervous potential recruits wracking thier brains for reasons to support any policy that keeps them out of uniform. Keep the unwilling OUT!

I have to agree againg here. The military is not ready for such a influx of people. Another question i would ask is: what job/mos would they do? everybody can't be infantry. Are they enough "smarts" in mandatory service to do the highly tech MOSs like avaition/medical? hmmm

Today's military is not like Regan's military (proud to serve under Regan)
thoughts?

slavery is illegal

We already have this to a limited extent. Look up the Militia Act of 1956.

Don't you mean the Militia Act of [b]1792[/b]?


Mandatory military service isn't going to do much of anything to "instill discipline" as many of you seem to think.  Remember that we had "mandatory" military service in the 1960s and 70s and it didn't do anything to stop the rise of radical Marxist anti-American sentiment in hippies and flower children.  

As another very astute poster already revealed, this stunt is nothing more than a very clever political ploy to cause the Million Mommies and fairweather patriot teenagers to get their panties in a bunch.  Sending troops to die on the other side of the planet was OK under Clinton because it wasn't their asses, or their childrens' asses on the line.  Making them think another draft might take their little angels and transform them into evil "baby-killers" will cause the middle-class mothers in America vote for anybody who has an anti-war agenda.

Damn, ya beat me to it!

For those who don't know, here it is:

Military service is optional and always on a volunteer basis.  Once you enlist, you can literally leave at any time.   But you must complete two years of service in order to be granted FULL citizenship, which means you can't vote if you don't complete two years of service,
among other things.

It's an interesting idea.  Greater rewards are granted to those who show a willingness to serve.

I think I would support that proposition.

I do think that all decisions relating to the use and provisioning of our armed services should be made by those who have served with their forces long enough to have an actual understanding of the service, its mission, and its requirements.

CJ

Bad idea. Save it for when there is no other option.

At one time I welcomed the idea of Heinlein "citizen vs civillian" thing, but I think the "exclusive rights to those who join" has already been done by the nazis and the commies.

Considering the liberal, pc, revisionist crap that the public school system is filling our teenagers heads with now, what kind of anti-military would the school boards allow these kids to have drilled into them prior to service?

I believe it is a great concept, but I also believe the time when it would have been practical has passed.

I don't look at it as have to be there. I see it as the population doing service to their country, and shouldering a fair share of the burden. We have just as many people whinning at work, what does it matter where you whine?

If we begin a war on two fronts we should think about training some recruits.

We have a mandatory military service here, 6-12 months depending on to what grade you are trained. Mandatory reserve training exercises also.

If you don´t want to complete an armed service you can opt for a civil service which is 13 months.

If that doesnt suit you....you can go to jail for 13 months.

I didnt realize that since miltary service is voluntary that the families arent concerned NOW. I guess if we make it mandatory the families will care.

This congressman is an idiot...but I repeat myself.

Israelis conscripts make better soldiers because they are motivated to stay alive.

My personal opinion about military service is that every 18 year old should volunteer - if a 2 year option is available, most people of that age are mature enough to realize that they can survive about anything for a mere two years (especially after they get over the initial shock of leaving civilian life).  So what if they are trained in combat arms and not computer science or electronics - they are providing a temporary service to their country, not answering a life long calling.  [The real effect of this service is not really temporary, it will have a long, beneficial effect on society far beyond the actual term of service.]

The truth is this - military service should simply become a matter of fact in our society; what I mean is that society should expect it, and 18 year olds should gladly take their place to fulfill their obligation.  Failure to [u]Do Your Duty[/u] should reduce your status in society.

My opinion of draft is a little different - a bullet proof means of screening out unsuitable candidates is required.  I have seen the effects first hand, and they are an unacceptable drain on a unit's efficiency.  I think that there times of great national emergency when a draft is necessary.  On the other hand, I don't think any emergency is large enough to warrant service in a federal social service corps with inane goals such as "midnight basketball".

Just some thoughts composed here at the keyboard.

NO THANKS

I don't want to work next to some Fuck that is forced to be there and not doing the job correctly. The  technical line of work I am in you cannot afford to make mistakes. Too many peoples lives depend on the work I & many of you do.

So keep the cry babies at home if they don't wanna join.

IIRC Brazil is the same way 1 yr military OR 1 yr service on the national train system OR 1 yr on garbage trucks.
On the face of it it seems like a good thing and maybe in the concept of mandatory military reserve or national guard service / training would be a good thing but even our own experience showed conscript soldiers to be less motivated and willing --I am not detracting from the soldiers from the draft era-- just that it led to a "I'm just doing my time till I get out" mentality. The armed forces as a whole underwent a transformation from Vietnam to Desert Storm from Draftees to A profesional volunteer military and I think going back to a drafted main force component would nesscessarilly drag down the level of Professionalism, training,knowledge and dedication of the armed forces as a whole. In the end I think you are just creating a whole new welfare/job training program funded by DOD.
The Dem's/Socialists/Lib's hate the military and if they can turn back the clock and discredit the Military by ruining it from within so much the better. Rangel is a snake anyway If he is proposing one thing it is only to distract you from something else. Besides it is 8 years of (visible) unwillingness to authorize military force that brought us to this juncture in the first palce (pacifisim in the face of agression only emboldens the aggressor).
No one especially Bush is going to send our troops in harms way "lightly" or without calculating the cost.

Also to counter Rengels statement: "I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.'"
So the parents of our soldiers now are not concerned about thier children going off to war ???? There are several people on this board  whose sons or daughters or both are active duty military around the world and I think all of them care (deeply)that thier children could end up at war.


"Rangel did not provide specifics of his proposal." Of course not that would imply intelligent thought on the matter on his part--oh and dont be surprised if he lumps on some sort of pork for his home district to his bill.

We don't need a draft UNLESS we need more people in the service.
I guess dingleberry dipshit hasen't heard of the Selective Service.
The only thing I would change is to add women to it.

I would not mind seeing a program along the lines of either the old Civilian Conservation Corps or the California Canservation Corps that would allow people who can not serve in the Military yet who want to help America.

[url]http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/register/registra.htm[/url]

What is the Selective Service System?
The Selective Service System is an independent agency within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The Director of Selective Service is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Selective Service is not a part of the Department of Defense.

The Federal law under which the agency operates is the Military Selective Service Act. Under this law, the mission of the Selective Service System is to provide the numbers of men needed by the Armed Forces, within the time required, should Congress and the President decide to return to a draft, in the event of a national emergency. Selective Service would also be responsible for administering a program of alternative service for conscientious objectors.

The last time I was at an Army base it looked like a training ground for the Crips and the Bloods.  The residents of the town told me that there were countless drug dealers on the base and their community was no longer worth living  in.  I wasn't there but I heard some say that their kind of activities are why we left early in Desert Storm.  Instead of training them to do better drive-bys, let's try something different.
I have a modest proposal that should make everyone happy.  As we all know it is the male of the species that are responsible for all of the troubles of the world.  As we also know, women would make the best soldiers if those dirty old men just would not look at their butts and the like when the women are busy being fierce warriors.  The solution is obvious.  Give women their chance.  It is long overdue.  Have an all female army.  Of course all women should be given the opportunity to serve whether of not they like it. Universal conscription of gals only makes sense.

Robert McNamara proposed and got Project 100,000. Take 100,000 folks who would not qualify for military service, give them a chance to serve, and the GI Bill to further their education when they got out. What a SNAFU!!! We administratively discharged most of them! They were a waste of time and resources. Now Rangel wants virtually the same thing?? Screw him with a ten foot dildo!!

Those who have never had occasision to experience true violence are often the first to speak of it.

I dunno. I have oft thought that forcible slavery for a 2-year term right out of highschool would be just the thing that would kick this nation back into shape. It's commonplace in Sudan and other African nations.

I know if I had had any convictions, patriotism, or wanderlust as a young man, I would have greatly benefitted from a couple of years at Boy Scout camp/ military fantasy camp/a welfare program with guns.

Stop Ben, stop. Please. Slavery bad, freedom good. Performing one's tribal/civic duty for the nation good, forced to be badly trained cannon fodder bad.

gentlemen, the military service should never be used or considered as an agent of social conditioning per-se (It will teach these kids a thing or two about respect--teach them civility, etc).  The only social conditioning they should do is to end somebody else's society, or keep them from screwing with ours.  Mandatory military service will turn all areas of the military into 1. accept everyone, 2. don't desrciminate, 3.touchy-feely everyone can be a bad-ass military man/woman/gay guy/lesbian/slightly handicapped (LD-ED)/no talent wannabe Army of One.  We have the military that is the best trainied, most highly motivated, best equipped team of killers in the world.  Don't let the Democrats-who damned near ruined it during Clinton-- make any decisions that would change a thing.  National service --fine,whatever makes the Ones-who-know-all feel like they are making a fresh and radically new idea for everyone to help out the world--don't screw with our military.  

Yea I think mandatory service would be bad, hell the voluteers cryed like babies, imagine kids showing up, because they were too lazy to go to college.
                 FREE

No. Today's military doesn't need that many warm bodies as in years past.  

All it takes is one guy to push a button which takes the place of what it would take a couple companies to do during ww2.

As far as drafting for the sake of social conditioning goes, I doubt it would have much effect.  Every guy I knew in highschool, and certain relatives, who were deadbeat losers that went into the military returned the same way.  They really didn't seem or act any better off.  

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude! Have you ever thought about being a professional comedian? You in the Coast Guard or something? Or maybe a freshman in highschool? Sheesh!

Let me remind some of you guys that WW2 was won not by volunteers but by draftees...Everyone was in the service.

I agree 100%

I would be in favor of mandatory 2 year service if there were NO EXCEPTIONS (except a genuine physical handicap that made it impossible).

HOWEVER...

Rangel makes this proposal only so that American would be less "hawkish" if every family in America had a son or daughter in the military.  They'd be less likely to support military action.

In other words, this smug egotistical shitbag of a democrat whore is only trying TO PROMOTE HIS ANTI-DEFENSE AGENDA.

Soylent,

Technological developments in warfare have greatly reduced the numbers of men required for many tasks in the military and reduced much of the "grunt" work and manpower that used to be needed.  How can you deny this??  For example, a single stealth bomber can accomplish what might take a wing of B-17's to do during ww2.  With the press of a button, a single stinger missle can take out an aircraft that during ww2 might take a full battery of AAA guns to hit - if they hit at all.    



You are so right.  I used to have this idea of everybody running to enlist to fight in ww2.  Later I found that only 33% of the military in ww2 were volunteers.  The other 67% were only there because they were drafted.  The proportions of volunteers in Vietnam were actually higher than that of ww2.  Thats cool though, it just makes me prouder of my grandparents for volunteering, knowing now how much fewer really did.

The idea behind Starship Troopers, was that the responsibility** of participating in government should only be entrusted to those who were willing to to make the untimate sacrifice in order to preserve their society.

Hell, I'da signed up just for the powered armor suits (in the book version).

**In the book, voting was regarded as a responsibility rather than a right.  Their only "right" was to serve in the military.  

I have one question.  Who is going to foot the bill to have everyone in the military without raising taxes and how will that affect the military bugets?

I think we would be better served to stick with letting the people who want to serve to do so, and people who do not wish to serve stay home.  Having everyone in the service would be a very expensive thing to do.  

As an active-duty military member (Air Force), a couple of comments:

First, the technological nature of today's military means that you have a fully trained--and EXPERIENCED--soldier right at about the two-year point.  Any monkey can push a button or follow a checklist, but knowing how and why to do it--and when to deviate from it--require experience.  You only get that by doing, not by learning.  A two-year draftee will be fit to sweep runways and handle the paperwork on the unit urinalysis program, and that's about it.

Second, I agree with all those that say that a draftee would be dead wood in a unit--I have a hard enough time motivating the "volunteers" that are in NOW, let alone someone who's in against his will.

This is one to run away from.  Today's military is already suffering from politicized generals, low training/operating budgets and high operations tempos--we don't need a lethal injection of bad morale, poor training and social engineering to boot.

Easy. I WAS a grunt. I know better. For all the technological advances we have made, we still have to have a man walk the earth to claim it, and I know of no technological advances that have significantly changed the workload or need for numbers of infantrymen in combat. The mission is the sqame. We might have night vision and better camping gear, but the song is unchanged from 1941 to now. That crap you are spewing is hogwash that only the horribly uninformed or a liberal could believe. Show me the technological advances that have allowed a present day infantry company to do any more than a WW II infantry company could do. The only thing I can think of is better antiarmor weapons, and that still requires an operator.

The Airforce LIES. A lot. Remember how the Patriot missiles hit 100% of their targets in Gulf War I? Then that figure became 80%, then 50%, now they don't think they hit more than 10% if that. BTW, a wing of B17s carried a lot more tonnage than a single B2. A single B2 is not capable of that degree of destruction, and if it gets shot down is both a great humiliation to us because our vaunted technological superiority has been bested by 3rd world wogs, but it is also a huge financial loss. Lose a B2 and lose more money in nonadjusted dollars than was lost at Pearl Harbor. The B2 was never meant for conventional warfare, it was meant to penetrate Soviet defences for a nuke run. Nukes are the only way a B2 can have greater destruction than a wing of B17s. AAA guys aren't grunts first off, and you were referring to grunts. Yeah Stingers are a tru force multiplier. I am sure they will get lots of use in Afghanistan against the many deadly flying attack goats and in Iraq as they try to evacuate their airforce to another country like the did in Gulf War I. Wake up. Quit playing so much Nintendo and learn a little about the militar. You may have to go serve someday, possibly against your will if Rangel and Ben Dover have their way.

Under NO circumstances should OUR kids be [b]forced[/b] to fight when we have countless military resources deployed to Europe and Asia. Bring the troops home first, take a long look at what [b]needs[/b] to be fought and what doesn't need to be fought and go from there.

A return to conscription would be a HUGE step backward. Yes, other Western nations do it that way but then again most other western nations ban guns and practice socialism wholescale. Not good source material. Those armies aren't very well trained or motivated (except for the British, but for how much longer?) It works for the Israelis only because their motivation is the survival of their state; nobody wants to invade Europe any more.

If there's to be any mandatory military service it should only be required for federal scholarships and even then not deployed to any "hot spots".

[size=3]Repeat after me, mandatory military service only takes place in communist countries and free countries that have peaked in population. It is not economical for the best country on earth, that's us in the USofA, to have mandatory service. Get the idea out of your head and separate yourselves from the wacko liberals.[/size=3]

Military conscription is slavery whether or not it ends in a military victory or a more disciplined society. Never mind the fact that there are enough tick-turds that should not be in service and do nothing to further military goals whether that is taking a hill, sinking a sub, or just sweeping the deck.