The Selective Service Act

[Ragnarok]

I'm not sure how many people know but Hollins and Rangel have passed legislation to reinstate the Selective Service Act. I'm strongly against it because it violates an individual's freedom.
Heres a good link below:
end selective service

Here is two quotes from Daniel Webster which I liked very much..

"Where is it written in the Constitution? In what article is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, parents from their children, and compel them to fight in battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? … Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? The question is nothing less than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. "

“A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the head of man.”

I think it is very foolish to draft U.S. conscripts to fight because they are poorly trained in comparison to the U.S. special ops. If you take a look at the Russian/Afghanistan conflict, Russian conscripts were getting slaughtered by Afghanistan troops because of their poor training. When President Bush was in office he sent in special ops to fight and he concluded there was no need for a draft. The whole point of learning history is to not make previous mistakes. Drafting young men with much less experience and training than the enemy doesn't make any sense to me at all. But then again the Senators aren't the ones fighting so I guess its pretty easy for them to come up with some stupid ideas. I was wondering what other people's opinions are on the matter.

[Rían]

What pops into my head after reading Webster's comments is that the reason he's able to even say that is because of the men and women that fought and died to create our country. They paid into our country; he's withdrawing the deposits they made in their blood. Our country was created by the sacrifice of brave men and women, and unfortunately, it sometimes needs to be maintained the same way.

I do NOT mean this in a mean way, but people are free to leave the country if they think there is a better place. But I can guarantee that there is NOT any country that has as a slogan: "Move here and you will only have happiness! You'll never have any unpleasant duties! If another country attacks us, you'll never have to do anything unpleasant to keep us safe - we have a magic fence around our borders that keeps all invaders out! If our freely elected representatives think we need to go somewhere outside our country to fix up horrific injustices, such as mass genocide, then we'll just encase our soldiers in magic uniforms so they don't get hurt, or better yet just zap those bad people with our magic ray gun that makes everything better!" I sure wish it was that way, but that's not reality.

I think sometimes it is a necessary evil to prevent a greater one.

[Lizra]

I agree with Rian. Another important reason for people to vote.....you want to elect a president who will only go to war when truely neccessary.

[Rían]

(psst - Lizra - you haven't seen a country like the one I've described, have you? If so, where is it, and how do you get a visa?)

Excellent point about voting!

[Lizra]

Oh, those countries? They never last too long....

[BeardofPants]

New Zealand.

[Lizra]

Count your blessings! Hey....everyone move to New Zealand!

[Valandil]

Rian - you might be able to MAKE one of them in the 'Nation-States' game - in the Great Continent of Entmoot sub-forum of RPG! Otherwise, I think you're out of luck.

Ragnarok - in all seriousness, it may be worth discussing whether the draft should be used ONLY for defensive purposes... militias, coast guard forces, etc... that STAY HOME. Then we could also have a volunteer standing army (plus navy, air force, marines) which could be deployed to foreign fields.

However, Rian makes a good point about participating in world issues and using the strength that we have for the betterment of the whole world. Then, as Lizra says, it becomes a matter of deciding which things we do in that regard, voting our conscience accordingly, and yet still pulling together as a nation to support whatever the outcome is. There are some great issues facing our world, and our country. There often have been. To make ourselves short-handed, by our own hands, at a time of great need, would not be wise.

Most would agree that it was a good idea for the US to go 'all-out' in WW2. Feelings may be mixed about other wars of the last century; WW1, Korea, Vietnam, etc. It's hard to judge the present affair until it goes from current events to history. In most cases, we probably won't know what was for the best - because the outcome of a different decision is hard to gauge.

Most however, agree that there is a 'cost' to be a 'free society'. It's not an easy thing.

And I DO think many of the decisions would be made more responsibly if sons of senators had no more special shielding from dangerous duty than sons of farmers and factory workers. (please note that this is an 'equal opportunity slam' - while President Bush may have been protected, so was Vice President Gore... it's another reality of our culture that those who are priviledged enough to be in a position to get shielded, also have opportunities to rise in politics - for either party)

[Lizra]

The "all volunteer" army sort of turned into the "army of young people who couldn't afford to go to college any other way", so that turned out kind of weird....when an actual war started.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Lizra
The "all volunteer" army sort of turned into the "army of young people who couldn't afford to go to college any other way", so that turned out kind of weird....when an actual war started.

There is some truth to THAT too - which actually would make a draft more 'fair'. Hmmm... much to think about.

[jerseydevil]

We may have selective service where one has to fill out a piece of paper IN CASE there is a draft - but actually many countries REQUIRE a citizen to go into the military. I was surprised to learn from jonathan that he had to go to the militaryy after he turned 18 - had to get physical and everything and wasn't even sure if they were going to say "yup we can use you - have your stuff packed up on this date - we'll see you then."

You should be lucky you live here and the fact that we don't REQUIRE military service.

[BeardofPants]

New Zealand doesn't have drafting, or required military services.

When my friend was over from Germany, she told me about how they had something similar there for young males. Weird.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

God bless the kiwi's, BoP!

Across the Tasman, there is no compulsory service either, nor back home in Eire. The only time Australia has had compulsory service was during WWII, when the japs had bombed Darwin and were threatening to invade. And even then, it was restricted to the Aussie mainland and New Guinea (then an Australian colony)

[Lizra]

New Guinea? My dad fought on New Guinea during that war. So it was an Australian colony and the J's invaded it? I never cared for history...particularly war stuff.

[The Gaffer]

No compulsory service here (UK) either, and long may it continue.

Most European countries have some variant of it, and most of them allow you to choose a military form or a social form of it.

The view in the UK is that having a fully professional military means that you have a better military.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

I agree Gaff.

The Australian army is modeled directly on the Brits, and both have small, professional armies. And given the types of actions they are likely to see, terrorism and peacekeeping, I recon that this puts them vastly above the larger armies per capita.

And the sort of soldier you want is always a volunteer, their hearts are really in it.

[brownjenkins]

interestingly enough, there was a democratic congressman (can't remember who) who was trying to institute the draft pre-iraq invasion

his point was one that was mentioned earlier... it would make us all take the idea of sending ourselves or our sons to war a lot more to heart

while there are exceptions, in general, it is the most economically disadvantaged who tend to volunteer for the services... on the flipside, the most advantaged rarely do... and anyone who knows our system knows it is generally the most advantaged who become politicians

the problem i see is that the people who have the most pull when it comes to making war have the least personally at stake

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Look at Vietnam, a perfect case in point. All the rich kids went to university (they could afford it), went to Canada, or pulled a tour in the national guard. Per capita, many more blacks, who are generally less wealthy, were draughted as opposed to white. Oh to be the son of a senator in 1968...

The poorer do join the armed services in greater numbers as vollunteers, but statistically, they get draughted a lot more too.

Basically, the poor old blue collars are screwed either way.

[Radagast]

As a matter of interest, when did conscription in the U.K. stop?

[The Gaffer]

1963

BBC brief history