Mandatory military service

KloD · September 15th, 2005, 06:27 AM

Where do you stand?

Dback Jon · September 15th, 2005, 06:28 AM

shouldn't there be a mandatory poll?

KloD · September 15th, 2005, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

shouldn't there be a mandatory poll?

It posted before I was finished. Hmmmm

Dback Jon · September 15th, 2005, 06:34 AM

I voted no. We should not need it.

DjaugheOld · September 15th, 2005, 06:35 AM

No thank you.

arthurracoon · September 15th, 2005, 06:41 AM

no thanks...

PortlandCardFan · September 15th, 2005, 06:52 AM

I voted 'Unsure'. I am against the draft because I feel it lowers the quality of troops. However if there was some type of Mandatory National Guard which worked only within the US boarders I wouldn't mind it so much. If you wanted to take the Mandatory troops oversea to fight then my answer would be 'No'!

thirty-two · September 15th, 2005, 06:54 AM

Pariah · September 15th, 2005, 07:10 AM

I have mixed feelings on this. I voted "unsure," but I think I'm leaning towards "Yes, mandatory service."

On one hand, I think madatory military service would help our Nation "grow up." We've become a babied nation. As a whole, we've grown soft and lazy and we expect things to be handed to us--we think it's a right. Past generations have had the notion that you need to earn your way and have been disciplined in working for it. I think the military would teach kids discipline and the value of hard work. I wish I had learned it before I went off to college. I wish I had joined the military and "grown up" myself. I think my life would have been a lot different--for the better.

On the otherhand, mandatory service feels like it might be a violation of rights. But, maybe that's just the Gen X soft-side of me talking. "I don't have to do anything" is the wrong message to send to kids (yes, I think 18-year olds are "kids"). You do have to do things.

I talked myself out of an "unsure" vote. I want to change it to "Yes."

The madatory stint should be 2 years, and people who have a conciencious objection to it could ride a desk or become a cook or something, but they'd still have to do it.

Chaz · September 15th, 2005, 07:26 AM

I am going to say no.

I know countries in Europe and other places do it and I can see where it could be a good idea. I have no problem making people serve if they sign up for direct government benefits.

The U.S. is a different animal. If this is a free country then you can't force people into slavery (even if just for a short time). I know that is a loaded word and perhaps not entirely accurate but I don't know what else to call it if you force someone into servitude against their will.

In this counrty the people don't serve the government. It was specifically designed the other way around and it was specifically designed to be different from 'the old world'.

If you can't defend this country with volunteers then is the threat really that great or is the country really worth saving?

thirty-two · September 15th, 2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

I am going to say no.

I know countries in Europe and other places do it and I can see where it could be a good idea. I have no problem making people serve if they sign up for direct government benefits.

The U.S. is a different animal. If this is a free country then you can't force people into slavery (even if just for a short time). I know that is a loaded word and perhaps not entirely accurate but I don't know what else to call it if you force someone into servitude against their will.

In this counrty the people don't serve the government. It was specifically designed the other way around and it was specifically designed to be different from 'the old world'.

If you can't defend this country with volunteers then is the threat really that great or is the country really worth saving?

wow excellent post!

DjaugheOld · September 15th, 2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

....If you can't defend this country with volunteers then is the threat really that great or is the country really worth saving?

Perhaps a future poll question?

Quote:

Are you willing to die to protect your country from a real threat?

AZZenny · September 15th, 2005, 08:05 AM

Definitely, absolutely yes - coming from one of the more liberal folks here! Surprise!

I base my perspective partly on the model of Israel - everyone serves 3 years, gets in shape, learns various skills, learns to physically defend themselves, works together for the safety and betterment of their nation. For a number of years after, there is annual reserve duty. Their military traditionally has had enormous pride and competence, their youth may begrudge the time, but they typically develop a sense of cohesiveness and self-esteem - a true 'citizen army.'

This is our country, our nation, and we should be willing and proud to serve it and defend it as a citizen army. I don't believe that's slavery any more than compulsory education. It's a price everyone pays for living in a democracy. How can you say we are not supposed to serve the government? We ARE the Government! That's what set us apart from the old world.

Mandatory service -- a truly doesn't-matter-who-your-Daddy-is, kid, you're-goin-to-boot-camp type of mandatory -- for males and females both -- would have some equalizing/egalitarian effect, which this country desperately needs. It would, as Pariah noted, perhaps slice through some of the incredible self-indulgence and gross acquisitiveness and make kids grow up a bit.

A volunteer-only army - lets call it what it is, a hired army -unfortunately taps the poorest and the most limited youth for the most part, and to think that somehow makes it fair - or competent - seems pretty naive.

CaptTurbo · September 15th, 2005, 08:09 AM

I voted yes.

Ona side not, kind of, if women are going to be allowed to avoid combat areas and they are in combat MOS's then we need to take women out of the military and not give them nadatory service.

As an example our unit that went to somolia and Bosnia were half female. None of them had to go so we had to refill with reservists who had little to no training. That is an awful way to go to war.

CaptTurbo · September 15th, 2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Definitely, absolutely yes - coming from one of the more liberal folks here! Surprise!

I base my perspective partly on the model of Israel - everyone serves 3 years, gets in shape, learns various skills, learns to physically defend themselves, works together for the safety and betterment of their nation. For a number of years after, there is annual reserve duty. Their military traditionally has had enormous pride and competence, their youth may begrudge the time, but they typically develop a sense of cohesiveness and self-esteem - a true 'citizen army.'

This is our country, our nation, and we should be willing and proud to serve it and defend it as a citizen army. I don't believe that's slavery any more than compulsory education. It's a price everyone pays for living in a democracy. How can you say we are not supposed to serve the government? We ARE the Government! That's what set us apart from the old world.

Mandatory service -- a truly doesn't-matter-who-your-Daddy-is, kid, you're-goin-to-boot-camp type of mandatory -- for males and females both -- would have some equalizing/egalitarian effect, which this country desperately needs. It would, as Pariah noted, perhaps slice through some of the incredible self-indulgence and gross acquisitiveness and make kids grow up a bit.

A volunteer-only army - lets call it what it is, a hired army -unfortunately taps the poorest and the most limited youth for the most part, and to think that somehow makes it fair - or competent - seems pretty naive.