There is very little room for strong feelings in rational decision making.

"When the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with a passionate intensity"

I wanted to get another opinion so I asked Mr. KillarneyRose to read the thread and see what he thought. I usually consult him on most military matters since he has 4 years at the Naval Academy and 2 wars under his belt. But enough of what's under hubby's belt and on with the post :D

His opinion differs from mine in that he thinks the military should expand the role of Reservists and if troops are still spread too thin, only then institute a draft. He says it doesn't make sense to draft people if there are Reservists who aren't engaged.
He thinks that ideally, the military should be made up of motivated individuals who want to serve. And he's frankly puzzled as to why someone wouldn't choose to serve his or her country, but thinks the decision to serve should be made as the result of a gutcheck, not as the result of legislation.

Oh, and James, he loved your fat person quote! :)

Russ, I am only going to reply to your last comment.

How many dead-end people do you see each week?

How many people do you know who have been killed by improper use of a weapon?

How many people do you know who served in the CCC or other such services in the 1930's?

Because of my job, I have seen thousands of people with virtually no real hope of ever having a real job. Girls who had their first baby at 12, guys who have been searched by the police day after day simply because they are on the wrong street & are black. Women who feel that the sole purpose of our government is to incarcerate every black man under 40; men who will never be able to have more than manual labor because of a prison record.

I also see elderly clients whose lives were changed drastically because they did join the CCC or such in the 1930's. People who literally had the clothes on their backs, and are now aged & frankly, very well off. While I'm sure they exist, I've yet to meet a CCC "graduate" who isn't very well off to rich - and each credit the skills they learned in CCC with their drive.

Forget about the mass expansion of government; the labor unions will kill this idea long before it goes very far.

We have the population to make an all-volunteer force possible and viable.

In fact we cut the military back after the cold war.

Originally it was tasked to be able to fight a two front war as well as a side action . . although KR's hubby will know a lot more about than I do.

There is a lot of abuse potential in a National Compulsory Service as well as just the possibility of making the Federal Government even larger.

I would vote no on it . . i understand Honeychile's point of view and would have agreed when I was younger . . but I find that my patriotism now is both older and more cynical.

I am leery of anything that smells of Gosh Wow patriotism . . Rah Rah Rah . . . as well as arguments such as . . Everyone should want to serve their nation. . . its just to vague an emotive of a selling point for me.

I'd believe it if I heard the sound of jackboots on the streets and people in brown shirts singing: "Die Fahne hoch, die Reihe fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig, festern Schritt..." (Raise high the flags, stand rank on rank together! Stormtroopers march with steady, quiet tread...) -- the opening lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied (Horst Wessel's Song), the Nazi party anthem.

A devil's advocate question:

If everyone had to participate in two years of military service, do you think it would make the government more or less likely to send those children into war?

It's theoretically easy to send "dead-end" people like those honeychile described to war; I'm sure some of the politicians wouldn't blink twice in some cases. But when a large majority of their children, male and female, and their constituants' children, would be in the service for two years, you can bet that there would be a much larger hue and cry over military action.

Yes, the rich and powerful can still probably wrangle exemptions for "physical handicap" and the like. But not everyone in the middle class would be able to. They'd vote people's asses out of office in a heartbeat if it was abused.

Two years of military service could instill confidence in many of those who do not have it (and I'm talking shy people, not just the economically disadvantaged). People would be exposed to a wider range of jobs and skills. It's likely that more people would be interested in serving their country/government in some way after having two years of service. It would give many Americans a more common ground and common experience.

The drawbacks, of course, are that there are more people trained to go to war, or to serve in the reserves, who might be in the line of fire. Then again, if everyone was trained for the reserves, those who continued in military careers might number enough to fight on the front lines, the usual reservists going into active duty, without keeping the same people overseas for 18 months as it's headed with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Switzerland also have compulsory military service for its (male?) citizens?

I'm patriotic as the next person. Really. I went to be enlisted but was disqualified for asthma, and I was actually disappointed. Serving my country would have been my choice, voluntary and un coerced. I don't think that *forcing* people to serve their country is really what our "free country" needs. Besides, how on earth are they gonna pay for this? Just enforcing the law would cost a hefty chunk of change. Much less implementing it.

Yep.. and they take their weapons home to...

As someone who has served (albeit in another nation) I have to agree with an earlier comment that a nations military should ideally be made-up of volunteers, people who are motivated to serve their country.

Besides is the act required... I thought enlistments and re-enlistments were up over the last 2 years?

Am I hoping that such a bill doesn't pass...yes, I'm quite comfortable with my life sans military service right now.

However, if for whatever reason it were to pass, I would serve faithfully in duty for my country.

The chances of these bills passing though are slim and none.

yeah... seriously.

this bill hits too close to home. i have cousins, distant relatives, and too many friends of that age and all in perfect health. i wouldn't want them to go off fighting like i am sure many of you don't want your loved ones to risk their lives.

i am not a fan of the war or of Bush or politics for that matter. my whole idea would be just to get off our high horse and leave Iraq... but that isn't gonna happen. And putting people in the military that don't really want to be there isn't gonna help us... it will just equal a greater body count. :rolleyes:

I agree with Mr. KR and others that a "professional military," backed up by Reserves and National Guard is the best way to go. That has been pretty well established since the draft ended.

However, I should point out that it wasn't the draft that tore "this country apart," but rather the Vietnam Conflict itself. The draft had been in place for many years and was considered a given. Granted that it allowed for gross inequities in who served and who didn't.

The fact that draft cards were burned was not really a demonstration against mandatory service as it was against the conflict.

Kind of like burning a bra was a symbol of...well, what was that symbol of?

Kidding and ducking out of the way of potential flames.

I will vote for it, it says any way of defense.... and I am under 26. I would do it...

I would be very cautious about relying on the Reserves and National Guard. They are less effective, and in the current theater of operations in Iraq, the mortality rate of reservists, compared to full time personal, a few months ago, was about 500% greater. This was an eye opener. It is safe to assume that draftees will also be less effective, and rife with problems.

Also, I'm sorry if I implied that the draft was the sole reason for civil unrest in the US in the 60s. I do, however, believe that the level, and length, of tolerance for that conflict will not be repeated in my lifetime if a draft is in place. Especially if the disparity between who serves, and who doesn't is repeated.

I'm interested in your thoughts here. A draftee would potentially be younger, have had his/her training more recently, and, if conscription were to be done correctly this time, the average draftee could be as intelligent (or even more if the service is actually "universal") than at present.