Mandatory Military Service

No way.

One of the strengths of our military is that it is an all volunteer force. I can tell you from my experience the guys I served with were not there for patriotism or some sense of duty. There were a few to be sure, but many had few other options.

Anyone who says yes because of some social contract nonsense and contributions to society needs to put down the Heinlein books.

 

How are you going to pay for it?

Obviously you oppose any physical or mental standards for military service - of it someone can't run fast enough and do enough push ups then you want them banned from college?

 

This should be a rite of passage, a welcome to adulthood, to citizenship, to responsibility. The founding fathers envisioned only a small standing army.

We need to pay more attention to how the Swiss solve problems. They figured out universal healthcare, complete private, private insurance, private doctors and private hospitals. They figured out how to keep from being overrun by immigrants. They figured out how to be prosperous with very little arable land or natural resources.

 

Was too busy to find the info earlier. But here it is:



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823978

http://www.memphis.edu/law/documents/kriner-shen46.pdf


Article and summary:


https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/new-umn-study-america’s-wars-take-uneven-toll





So again I ask: even if you have a draft like we did in the 1950s and 60s, how do you insure that the wealthy elites who profit from war will pay the highest price in terms of blood for the wars they create? How do you insure that their children are not given the cozy assignments or the easiest exemptions?

 

What about those willing to serve who might be rejected by the military for medical reasons? Would they still get the offer of free college?

 

nowadays, a college education is worthless with many graduates on food stamps or other forms of social services:



[video=youtube;wofi37ZAk6k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofi37ZAk6k[/video]





If you force many of these people into the army for five years, you will then force them to pay in terms of food stamps as well - it will NOT be worth the cost either way.

 

No, because the military doesn't want it. Draftees change the general dynamics of a military force, and not in a good way. Also, most of Europe who did have a mandatory draft has given it up in the last ten years or so. They found it to be costly, without much societal benefits.

 

They should at least go through basic training so their fit to survive on their own

 

Yes but not necessarily in a combat role. Allow people to serve in the professions or bureaucracy (within the military chain of command) if they so choose/are qualified. It's the idea of fighting an unjust (to a conscript's mind) war that gives drafts such a nasty repetition. A med student spending 10 years saluting their professor/boss isn't too much to ask for a free education. It also allows for conscientious objectors that might get caught up in the draft. Our volunteer force is sufficient, we don't need to force people into combat to field a combat effective force. Indeed, that's a point of pride for the military and not 1 they'd want to surrender unnecessarily.

 

From the information I've gathered, only about 25% of those in Vietnam were volunteers. It's a myth that mainly draftees fought in Vietnam.

http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

 

Historians say about 25% of those in Vietnam were draftees.

 

You do remember that while SoS, Hillary was described as extremely hawkish even by her own party, don't you? That would make her, by your definition, a warmonger.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, if it works better than what we have, why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Far different than the alleged percentage that the person I quoted intimated.

 

I voted yes only because there will be fewer and fewer jobs with the robots taking them. If jobs were plentiful then I'd change the vote to no.

 

if that was a promise, that would be great, you do service, college 100% paid for

- - - Updated - - -

robots cost too much - foreign outsourcing to 3rd world wages is cheaper - corps are greedy

 

She has said some stupid things about Iran. That is a matter of record. But she has not ordered the invasion of any country unlike your heroes in the far right Republican party.

 

No.

I believe we should make better use of the militia; we can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

Switzerland is extremely restrictive on who they will allow to migrate to their county and has exactly NOT open borders. Switzerland puts their people, their country and their culture first and will not allow it to be invaded - meaning the policies of Switzerland are exactly opposite from those of the American Democratic Party.

 

No, we can't afford it and there is no purpose to doing so.

However, I fully support using convicted felons on chain gangs to rebuild our roads, parks and infrastructure as a condition of being eligible for parole and good time served. Won't work, sit out the full sentence.

College assistance also should require community work service. But, then except for the elderly and severely disabled all food stamps, welfare, unemployment benefits and housing assistance should be conditioned upon working in exchange for those free-bees.

 

Our volunteer military is the best in the world, and when your son is in combat, you want him fighting with the best of the best, nothing less.

I know this from very hard experience.

Not only am I opposed to a draft, I am perfectly OK with making our military more elite than it already is.

My two cents ...

 

I don't see why not if it follows the cold war model, and after his two years my father opted to go career after they found he could absorb new languages like a sponge and was a natural translator. And led to a fast rise through the enlisted to warrant officer ranks. So who knows what talents one might get. However it needs to be open to all including the disabled maybe in a limited duty capacity where they can be of value in uniform or would violate Federal Law and it should be repeatable ending the need for welfare if one can serve the armed forces and get military health care and pensions.

 

They can do other forms of national service, and enter an apprenticeship or associate program if not qualified for college.

 

Then they can serve in roles not requiring combat or foreign service into war zones if they can do a desk job, drive a truck or cook in a kitchen they can do so in a support capacity freeing up a fit person who is in longer term service to go to a possible combat role. Someone still has to do the support tasks or are you saying driving a truck of supplies from one state to another is combat?

 

No. Having a draft during peacetime is silly.

 

I've noted the mention of the "social contract" we virtually sign when we get the citizenship [because of birth or in a different way] of a country.

This "social contract" is not equal for all countries [like Republics have got different Constitutions]. Any single country exists in its context and it can or not require military service to the citizens. The matter of fact that in this "social contract" is written that the Republic [or the Monarchy, or ...] has to grant the territorial security of the country [and defend the People from external invaders] is not automatically related to a mandatory military service. A government can hire mercenaries to defend its own country or to attack an other one [in Italian Renaissance this was quite common when there were wars to run].

As I was mentioning in my previous post, Israel [and Switzerland] interpret the conception of "social contract" in this way [Switzerland partially: only referred to male citizens]. If you want to be Israeli, you have to serve in the IDF.

So, I wouldn't see a direct connection between citizenship and serving in the Army. The military activities are functions we demand to the government. In fact the Armed Forces are not private corporations, but public entities.

At the end. it's all about licit social policies, there are no certain and eternal principals regarding mandatory military service.

 

Unless you are willing to give our Statue of Liberty back to the French take the blame for it, why not figure out a way to generate revenue from potential, foreign labor wanting to try their luck in our markets for labor?

I believe the US can be "cost competitive" with the Swiss.