Heard on the radio on the commute to work this morning that this is going to be pitched by Rangel (sp?) of New York. It would be a minimum two years after high school graduation. Of course for a period after that a person can be called back. The thinking behind this (no pun intended) is that if the legislators are faced with their own children going to war, they would not be so quick to involve our military with conflicts not directly affecting our national sovereignty. There was even comment that the legislator's children should be the first to go, as a sign that they were in support of military resolution of a given conflict. (I don't know about that one.) So, whaddayathink? In my opinon, I can't see this happening for the reasons Rangel wants. It might be something to consider because our military are pretty shorthanded (having to call up Reserves to do national stuff is a bad idea).
No way in hell this will ever pass. If it does, whoever voted for it will be kicked out of office and it will be repealed the next time Congress convenes. Just my opinion.
I am 15, and even I know this goes against what our country is based on. Freedom for the people, right? If it is truly freedom for the people, we shouldn't have to be forced to do anything. If this law is passed I will hate the United Sates congress people. They already are hippocrites, and they dont care about anyone but themselves. I would rather go to jail than be FORCED to do something. If it were in times of a war, I might be able to see that, but PERMANENT MANDATORY Draft? No way, it doesnt stand a chance.
Yes...but registering for selective service doesn't end in you wearing fatigues and toting a rifle. A draft does.
I agree completely, Ref. I was addressing Eddie's comment about the government forcing us to do things. Selective service is something that you must do...or pay the consequences if you are caught. Because of this, it would not be too far off base for the government to consider such a policy.
Not sure either. If my country needed me in WW III, I wouldn't run like a pu$$y. A forced 2 year commitment in times of peace might be too far although I wouldn't mind seeing forced ROTC instead of PE in high schools.
I think that is a good idea Smokey. I'm not in ROTC because I play football instead, but I think ROTC for about a semester or a year would be a good idea. I know some people wouldn't like it, but I think it is a good idea.
LOL! Actually, that is a great idea Smokey. I remember doing all four years in high school -- company commander my senior year! When I went in as a freshman, I was a hard head. They taught discipline and it changed a many of us for the better. I am going to recommend it to my kids.
You do a draft when you need to throw a lot of cheap bodies at an enemy. We don't fight wars that way. We use a technological dominance in warfare which requires a professional, dedicated and well-trained army. I doubt the benefits of having the entire citizenry trained in rudimentary combat could justify the very significant expense of housing, feeding and training so many soldiers, given their limited use in our actual combat situations. If we get in a war with China or India, I can understand a draft. But, to bully Iraq or North Korea -- and even moreso to fight terrorism -- having all those soldiers would be worse than useless. Other (smaller and less powerful) countries do have mandatory service. I'm unfamiliar with the Swiss system, but do know a little bit about the French and Israeli service. In both of those cases, military service is a de facto part of one's education and training for the work force. So, it serves an additional social function that has nothing to do with defense. I don't see a need to do that in the US -- and I'm fairly certain France and Israel could do without it as well.
I think that the participants get the right to vote from their military service??? Mandatory military service (for a single year?) may be a very hard sell to the American public.
I'm old enough to have been in the first Draft Lottery. It was strange beyond belief to see your fate decided on national TV by somebody pulling a piece of paper out of a drum. If you had a high number then you were not called up. I had some friends with very low numbers. Some went and some flunked the physical. My number was 336. I was lucky. If I thought the country was in danger I would have enlisted. It wasn't and the war was wrong, imho. My Dad saw action in WW-2. There is no question that a draft was needed for THAT one. JuanValdez, you got it about right.
Hadn't heard that. I can't say about Switzerland or Israel, but it isn't true in France. I did not serve but I am still allowed to vote. It is true in Israel though that people who have not served (for failing the physical or whatever) have a harder time getting jobs. I really don't understand the guy's justification that leaders would be less likely to go to war if their own children had to serve. Why would a president or a senator move heaven and earth to avoid a war if he can just make a phone call or two to be sure his son isn't put in any particularly dangerous predicament? Why do something so drastic to create a deterent effect that wouldn't even work? The obvious answer is that his stated goal of creating a deterent is a facade, though I don't know what real and plausible motivation he might have.
