It was the “Ilsie.” 
Nope. Everyone has to make their own decisions. But if your judgment causes you to decline military service, you still owe those that do not object the same respect that you would demand for yourself. But you know that.
I disagree with your assessment. My words indicate that a person who has no desire to serve can undermine morale and discipline simply through apathy. It doesn’t require any direct resistance. This guy has no desire to serve, and so he would be a drag on morale with what I would imagine to be more or less continuous objections. That isn’t treason, that’s simple disinterest. Now, if he sabotaged an airplane, that would be treason, but that’s actively undermining the mission, and I trust you can see the difference. I never insinuated anything about the latter case, just the former, which as I said is not at all treason.
Good for you. You know your own mind. But I would appreciate it very much if you could restrain yourself from using that word to describe well over half a million of your own countrymen in uniform now and many millions that came before us. We are not murderers. We are Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Sailors.
(Sorry, but this might date me.) Right on. Right fucking on.
I’m sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification. Next time I’ll know to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, as always. And personally, I’m just glad no one actually got called “a murderer.” When dealing with the military, that word’s got to be some flavor of Godwin, don’t you think?
.
I suspect that pretty soon we will start emphasizing military service as a route to immigration rights and citizenship. Volunteers will be expected to have whatever is equivalent to a high school education in thier native land, and a good to excellent command of ordinary English. A five year committment would lead to a probabtionary citizenship, with an expectation of full citizenship.
Applicants be reasonably expect that their political activities for the years preceding their application may be examined.
What? You got something against diversity? A plan very much like this worked for the Romans. For a while.
But an actual draft, like the Bad Old Days? Not on your life. First time GeeDubya mentions it, you’ll see Karl Rove committ seppuku in the Rose Garden.
The other reason is to try and force the conservatives to take an “Anti-Homeland Defense / Anti-Military” vote which they can then bash them over the head with come election time.
Dark Voice Over with BW 1970’s picture of Repub Candidate looking like a Hippy:
“Republican Ed Stossler (made up name) voted AGAINST measures to increase our prepardness against terroist attacks! Senator Dianne Feingold, voted for them! Who do YOU think is stronger on Defense? Vote Senator Feingold this November, for a Strong Defense We Can Be Proud Of!”
End VO fade to black
It’s a twofer. Either way they get mileage out of it. Knowing beforehand that the draft is not going to be re-instituted (regardless of certain screamers around here) makes it an easy measure to put forth. There’s no real political will to re-institute the draft on either side of the aisle. Further, there’s no desire on the part of the Military leadership for a draft at all. They suffered through a draft military during Vietnam and want NO part of THAT again. They’ve gotten used to an all-volunteer professional force and you’d have them kicking and screaming if you tried to make them go back to drugged up X-Gen’ers.
It’s DOA, just like a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriages. Nevah gonna happen. Good for politicking, but overall about as likely to occur as a re-emergence of the dodo.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I had to lengthen by two characters to post.
Gee, what an education I have received about a certain poster.
Again it’s just not going to happen. Do you have any idea how many bills/constitutional amendments are proposed each year that have zero chance of passing, just to make the proposer look good to his constituents?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Finnagain, but the white house has been fighting tooth and nail against any increase in the size of the military (except of course for the effective increases in size through stop loss, etc). They want more/better gadgets, not more people.
The pentagon does not want short term conscripts. They are too damn expensive and take too long to train to be useful.
Conscription is politically very unpopular. No politician wants 500 pen pals like Finnagain.
Universal civilian service is unlikely to be a popular item politically because of the dubious value of cheap labor when unemployment is high.
While both parties may be funded from some of the same sources I very much doubt Chuck Rangel and say Tom DeLay would take much pleasure in your lumping them in as being cut from the same cloth.
I imagine that the rationale for promoting such a service comes down to several factors:[ol]
[li]Share the Load - why should blacks, hispanics, southern whites do a majority of the soldiering[/li][li]Diversity is Good - the special nature of military service will force servicemen to both take a greater interest in our nation and learn how to work with people from diverse backgrounds[/li][li]War is bad - by making everyone a servicemen the Congress will have to develop a spine rather than let the President dictate all details of wars[/li][li]Responsibility is good - even civilian service will teach a valuable lesson in responsibility as the teenager learns what happens when a bedpan isn’t cleaned daily[/li][/ol]
p.s.
If we did have conscription, wouldn’t Finnagain become the tough but responsible and caring NCO by the last act of the movie?
I don’t know that that’s the case anymore. In my BMT Flight we had six black guys and one immigrant out of 45 people (BMT services all components of the Air Force). In my Squadron we currently have three non-white people total, out of about 200.
That doesn’t sound to me like minorities are carrying the load of the soldiering. Now, admittedly, this is a Guard unit, and since we do our own recruiting it’s more a reflection of the local makeup than anything else, but even so, doesn’t that number seem kinda small to you?
I think that question needs to be put to the test. Besides, I’ve never met a member of a minority who didn’t like what he/she was doing, so I suspect it’s a race-baiting, specious argument in any case, although I know little of the makeup of the other services. It just doesn’t seem to be the case in the Air Force.
I don’t see it as a race-baiting argument at all. Rather, it’s an argument that the volunteer military draws disporportionately from the lower classes of society (and thus attracts a higher percentage of minorities, as well as poorer whites). When you’ve got fewer options in life, the option of signing up for military service and getting the training and benefits, such as a government-funded college education, that can go along with that service is a lot more attractive than if you’ve grown up in a life of privilege and wealth. I grew up in an upper-class environment, and most people I know never even considered enlisting in either the regular forces or in the National Guard - but then, they didn’t need to. Their families could afford to pay to send them off to college or professional school; the military offered them nothing they couldn’t get more easily in other ways. Why sign up if doing so exposes you to avoidable risks and there’s no gain involved?
The powerful in our society disporportionately come from the upper classes - and it’s a lot easier for them to justify sending troops into a conflict if they know THEIR kids won’t be affected by the decision. If protecting and defending the country is a basic duty of citizenship, shouldn’t we take steps to ensure that ALL citizens risk having to perform this duty, and not simply the poor ones?
(The flip side, of course, is that the professionalism and overall morale of an all-volunteer force may be superior to that of a conscripted one. Still, I find the argument of “spreading the risk” a rather compelling one.)
Then , what is it? Do you heard about many wars which didn’t involve people being killed by soldiers? Why do they are taught how to use lethal weapons?
Certainly. But nevertheless they’re there to support to their fellow soldiers doing the actual killing.
It makes him someone who accepted to be trained in killing other people (did he had some document signed when he enlisted, stating that he would only be sent to peace-keeping mission and that he would never have to shot at/ kill someone?) and to risk his life in accomplishing whatever he would be ordered to do.
Listen. I know it’s not polite to state the blunt truth. But soldiers are trained killers. With a lot of niceties, but essentially killers. They might not kill directly, but then they’ll help their comrades doing so. They might never be involved in any war. But they’re trained to do so and willingly (for professional soldiers at least) accepted this outcome. They might be involved in peace-keeping, relief, etc…operations. But keeping peace and providing relief isn’t the main reason why countries have militaries. The war they can have to fight might be just. Or they might not be. The war might be vitally necessary for the country they serve. Or it might not be. And the militaries don’t have a say in what war they’ll accept to fight or not.
An enlisted man, once again, accepts to be trained to directly kill people or indirectly help killing them. He accepts the possibility of being responsible of the kiling of other human beings and the possibility of being himself killed. He is a trained killer, even though he won’t necessarilly have to actually kill anybody, or provide support to people doing the kiling.
That’s why i’m a conscientious objector . I do admit that a war can be necessary, that killing people and risking your life can be necessary. But I do not forget that under the niceties, putting on an uniform is accepting to become a mandated killer. And there’s absolutely no way anybody is going to tell me for which cause I should accept to kill and risk my life. This only can be my judgment call. And anybody drafted or enlisted is giving up his right to decide in which case he will accept what is probably the most dramatic choice one can make in his own life : being responsible for the kiling of other people and risking his own life. This is a choice that IMO can’t be left to the decision of anybody else, since otherwise, you’re likely to someday find yourself killing or being killed for trival reasons or worse for an unjust cause.
Your call to make, clairobscur. I just have one question.
Current law mandates two levels of conscientious objector. The first level is personally opposed to killing people. In the event of an all-out war, that person can be drafted into alternate service. That can include service in a military hospital somewhere, or as a clerk.
They will then serve their country without killing anybody, and free up a soldier for battlefield duty somewhere.
The second level of objector is opposed to war in general. Philosophical and Christian pacifists would fall into this category. They cannot be pressed into service that can support war in any form.
You have admitted that sometimes war is necessary. What kind of objector are you?
I think clair is French, Moto. Different laws probably apply.
Suddenly I find you strangely attractive, buddy. This isn’t the most unlikely scenario I’ve ever heard.
Toss that in with needing a large influx of immigration to maintain the contributor-to-benefitor of the Social Security system and bang! We’ve got a winner! Plenty of soldiers AND more taxpayers!
Ok, briefly, in France, a conscientious objector, from a legal point of view, is someone who is “oposed, in all circumstances to the personnal use of weapons”. They are (or rather were, since drafting ended recently) dong a
I don’t know what the ethnic/regional breakdown of enlistees is, I was just trying to come up with possible rationales for the bill, other than to get HORDES of BLOODTHIRSTY troops to INVADE and DESTROY other PEACELOVING countries and KILL KILL KILL. Thinking of reasons I have seen when various center-right or center-left individuals have proposed national service over the past decade.
I know that way back when there were fairly substantial differences between the services in terms of ethnic breakdown. But nowadays I have no idea. Probably easy enough to google, but not all that relevant - I was kind of addressing perception as much as reality.
Ok. Briefly, here, in France, a conscientious objector is, legally, someone who is “opposed in all circumstances to the personnal use of weapons”. They do (or rather did since drafting ended recently) a two-year long civil service (instead of one year for the military service or civil service of non-objectors), in various areas ( charities, social services, public services, whatever…). In case of war, they could be used to fill to non-military positions/missions which could include a risk (like for instance evacuation of civilians, decontamination, etc…).
So, when I applied for conscientious objector status, I told that I was “oposed in al circumstances…etc…” which wasn’t exactly the truth. Actually, I was a die-hard pacifist, oposed to war on principle, but not necessarilly to the recourse to violence or even weapons on an individual basis (when you can assess by yourself that violence is required in a given, individual situation, rather than in the collective indiscrimated mass-killing of a war). So, I rather belonged to your second category.
Since, I changed my mind concerning the necessity of war. I do think there are cases where killing someone is the right thing to do. And I do think there are times when a war is justified. So, now, I do not belong to any of your two categories.
However, I didn’t voided my conscientious objector status, for the reason I explained above : what I’m totally opposed to is fighting in a war that i wouldn’t personnally approve, or be involved in any way in the waging of said war. It’s a decision way too serious to be left to someone else, including someone who happened to be elected by 50, 1% of my fellow frenchmen.
For instance, at some point I could have worked for the french ministry of defense. I pondered it, and decided that I would have to refuse this possibility, because in this case, I could have aided, though indirectly, to military operations I didn’t approve, hence being accomplice of the resulting destruction, loss of lives, etc…(and it’s not like the french army has never been involved in dirty jobs, e.g. in Africa).
So, in my opinion, war should be left to people who volunteer. Nobody should be forced in “fighting for his country” whatever the circumstances (or else you could end up being the acccomplice of various atrocities…there’s no guarantee that your country will necessarily be always on the “good” side. Actualy, I can’t think of a major power which hasn’t been at least from time to time involved in dubious or utterly unjust military operations in recent history). This, of course has a drawback : many who will think the war is necessary/just will nevertheless rather leave other people die fighting it. I accept the drawback.
No, besides people volunteering during a large-scale war (which isn’t an issue likely to arise in our countries at this time, but like some other posters, I would say we can’t totaly exclude such a thing. The worst can and do happen), we’re left with the issue of professionnal soldiers. These ones have chosen to join the army. They also have chosen to accept to fight (or do whatever their actual job implies) when ordered to do so. So, I’ve no major issue with them, though the concept makes me very uneased. What if they’re sent to fight in a war they dissaprove, which would mean kiling peole (or aiding killing people) for a reason they know is unjust, unecessary, etc… I’m not sure how they can handle that perspective.
I would add, to help you understand that I couldn’t be, say, a judge, for similar reasons : I would have to enforce laws that I could personnally dissaprove. And I don’t want to have anything to do with actions I morally condemn. Though I don’t bear it to the extremes. For instance, some people refuse to pay a part of their taxes on the basis that they don’t agree with what the taxes are used for. It’s way too indirect to bother me. I just don’t want to be personnally involved.
Just to add something which could also help understanding my position. If I were living in Switzerland, for instance I wouldn’t have much issue with their military service, since they’re a neutral country and their drafted army’s only goal is defending their territory (which make highly unlikely to be on the “bad guy” side. Actually, I like their system based on general conscription, regular military training of essentially the whole male population.
Also, I don’t think I don’t have any obligations towards the community I live in (I mean in this case my country, though it could be more restrictive or more extensive than that) since it provided me with many things (an education, social security, a working social system, etc…). So, having a mandatory service in place isn’t an issue for me, either. I just don’t think my obligation is so extensive that it include the right to other members of said community to tell me what I should die/kil for. That’s quite the most extreme request one can make, and it should be left to individual moral choice.
Finn I am a conscientious objector. I agree that a draft is a bad idea. Your responses in this thread betray a level of ignorance for the reasons behind a bill like this (with sponsers like this) that I find truely reprehensible. No one here wants to see our nations youth butchered. No one here has committed a war crime. Accusing them of that makes you look like a shrill idiot.
Possiable reason why liberal democrats would like a draft:
The military, as they see it, is made up from people who aren’t on the upper end of the economic spectrum. (See George W. and the Nat’l Guard thing.) The people on the upper end of the economic spectrum are in charge of sending the military off to places. When they do so, it’s usually not their kids who have to go. If it was, maybe they wouldn’t… or at least they’d only do it for a good reason.
Would this work? Probably not, but only if everyone had to serve would it even have a chance. So few/no deferments.
Is this ever going to happen? No. There are all kinds of wacky bills floating around in committee. To jump on them as being representative of government policy, then getting the part of government that floated the idea wrong, then babbleing about how there is no real difference, then insulting people who call you on the above points was bad enough.
To then say that everyone who thinks your acting the fool is warmongering is what finally got me. If you’re going to be an ass… and from what I’ve read here you made that decision a few posts in, don’t hide behind moral beliefs that have nothing to do with being an ass. It only hurts those things you profess to believe in.
C
The problem with this scenario is that it is too slow and extremely expensive. Baby boomers retire in what, fifteen years? Institute this policy right now, get a massive influx of troops. Jack up taxes to support the increase in military spending(does this also imply that we’d need to be in a continual state of war for the next ten-fifteen years to justify this large military appartus?). Five years later most of them hop over to the private sector and find jobs(big assumption there, but that’s another kettle of fish). Now we’ve got some new taxpayers, but really it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we’d need to maintain the taxpayer/SS retiree ratio levels which would be comfortable, especially with healthcare costs spiraling upwards. I also don’t see a way to justify standing army in peacetime that would be large enough to provide a large enough influx to stabilize the worker/retiree ratio in the needed timeframe. Especially when this is an extremely expensive method of immigration for the taxpayer(although it would be cheaper on the immigrant).
Enjoy,
Steven