Should Military Service be mandatory for all?

Umm, every male signs up for the draft when they turn 18 and sign up for Selective Service. Clearly you folks don't think things out.

 

Great post. I think there should be a permanent draft. No exceptions, except for people who clearly are not physically able. You were planning to go to college? Bummer. I guess you can go after you get out. Your daddy is a politician? Great! You are the first to be drafted and put into a "front line" combat unit.

 

Excellent points. In general, I would see to it that politicians with the power to go to war had their offspring serving in a combat unit.

 

I think everybody would benefit from Basic Training. Thats about it though.

 

Selective Service should be repealed.

 

I'm sure there are pros and cons to this argument. But having to sign up for a draft so you can own a firearm is straight up retarded.The 2nd amendment clearly states the your right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon. You can draw a picture for these short bus riders a million times, and they still don't get the concept.

 

I have to disagree with you here. I think people acting on their own can be more effective than full units. You're basically talking about conscripts at this point, which tend to fall apart quickly. Random people shooting up patrols as they walk through neighborhoods, bombing vehicles, basically doing what the insurgents in Iraq are doing, would be much more effective than putting them all in a trench and watching them get mowed down as they run from a semi-competent army.

 

No mandatory service. While it would be nice for everyone to have skin in the game, mandatory service basically sets the precedent that the government owns you. I'm even against the draft because of that precedent and because it's unnecessary. If a war is so unpopular that we can't find enough volunteers to fight it then clearly we don't need to be in that war. Also were mandatory service to happen, the people who don't want to be there need to be kept out of combat arms. Last thing I would have wanted was someone who didn't want to be there and was (*)(*)(*)(*)ed off training rather than give 110% all the time.

 

Wow, you my man are a scholar worth noting in these trying times. I happen to be reading the book "Greatness"...Reagan, Churchill & the making of extraordinary leaders. Both great leaders lived and led by the slogan 'peace through strength', and by applying that just principle we/they defeated both Nazi Germany and the Commie Soviet Union. BTW, welcome to the forum and to dealing with the leftist crowd of losers, waifs, pacifists, protestors, traitors and govt dependents.

 

All I can say to people like yourself is that had it not been for our timely entrance into WWII the chances are you would be speaking German today, that is of course if you were even alive to speak; and had not Churchill and Ronald Reagan intervened with talk of might during the cold war and to the collapse of the former Soviet Union, then they--the Commies may well have taken Hitler's place as rulers of the world, for so many Eastern European nations were forcibly becoming commie puppet regimes. You could throw the Chi-com forced annex of South Vietnam in with that group if you like as being a part of a bonus deal. Unless you envisioned a world governed by Nazis and Commies alike as being your idea of a utopian world, I would suggest you take heed to Churchill's and Reagan's creed of 'peace through strength' before joining your local protest march against war.

 

Don't feel left out for they now allow androgynous gay males into the service.

 

I was referring to our wars over the last decades, NOT WWII... Now the USSR overstretched themselves and spent too much and so fell apart, the same thing the USA will do at this rate.. Reagan didn't magically talk them into collapsing.

NOWADAYS, however, there's no USSR, and no Nazis, so your blast from the past has no bearing on whether or not we need a draft right now, which was the topic of my post and this thread.

 

LOL, actually it was the Spartans for whom homosexuality was not only widespread but an integral part of their military strategy.

As to the OP question, hell no, forcing people to serve in the military is slavery; slavery is illegal and should remain that way.

 

The fact is that Reagan did show signs of strength and determination in dealing with Gorby. There are many books available that tell the concise story of how Reagan defeated modern day communism without so much as firing off one rocket.

Its guys like you that have no interest in nor knowledge in dealing with potential foreign threats that are our greatest threat to our freedoms today. I suppose the terrorist threat of extreme jihadists doesn't concern you in the least. That 9/11 episode was just a result of a bunch of misfits who had formed a suicide pact so as to meet their 72 virgins down in hell. Nothing to be concerned about for sure.

 

Reagan was a clown, an actor reading a script, a dumb man whose brainpower was weakened even further by disease by the time he got into the White House. His acting performances had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR.

There are no serious military threats to the United States right now, and it's time we slash the military budget by 90% or more so we can focus funding on real priorities.

 

You don't become a doctor simply by going to medical school either, but at least you have some idea of what you are getting into.
I am simply saying that with more experience perhaps people might make better decisions.
Do you really disagree with that?

 

This is the statement that my reply referred to...
"We wouldn't be a land of the free if we did. Nobody should be forced to fight a war that they don't want to, especially if it's not one they believe in. That's why I don't hold anything against draft dodgers."

Doesn't our military protect our freedom?
You say no. Does the majority agree with you?

 

At least then, everyone who owns a gun would have some idea what they are for and have some sense of accountability for what they do with it.

 

No there's no threat.. 9/11 you let people take weapons onto planes.. Now you have the TSA to give granny a grope so it shouldn't happen again.

When justifying a draft you need to talk about actual, real life threat of invasion, i.e. CONUS being invaded.. Terrorists sawing off heads and all that is great for sensationalized drama. The gangbangers at home kill many more innocents. There are threats, but nothing that overseas wars will get rid of.

 

The amendment also clearly states that we need a "well-regulated militia."

This is to say that, when we no longer recognize an obligation to defend the country and our neighborhoods effectively, we're screwed.

 

So, now let's say everybody who is not a felon and forbidden to own a weapon has one, or has access to one, and knows how to use it.

What happens to some thug with a criminal record when he starts acting like a petty warlord on his block?

 

can you show me where in the constitution it speaks of maintaining a strong and viable military?

 

Most of the founders thought that a large standing army was too easily turned to the purposes of a tyrant, as opposed to a much larger body of free citizens called to duty to deal with a specific emergency.

 

I know that. That's why I asked libhater to show us where in the constitution it states anything about maintaining a strong and viable military.

 

I think that his sort are the people that Adams was worried about.

He can pump his chest about what a great and powerful country we are, then sit on his butt enjoying a return on his profits from owning stock in a small arms manufacturer while real men go out and bleed and die for his portfolio.