LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   U.S. --2007 Military Draft-- (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=172952)

Darth Reign 11-24-2006 08:48 PM

U.S. --2007 Military Draft--
 
U.S. --2007 Military Draft--
I just got word that there may be a military draft. Does anyone else have more intel?

MasterRoss08 11-24-2006 08:54 PM

Yes ive heard of this in the paper. But this is just news. This guy thats
bringing this up again tried the same thing some years back and nothing
happend because it was shotdown. And chances are it will be shot down
again. People dont want the draft. The president doesnt want the draft.
I dont want the draft for sure. Senators,Congressmen dont want the draft
So I dont see it happening. Besides this isnt world war 2 people. If a world
war 3 happend I probally deffinatley see a draft happening but until then(which
I hope never comes) It aint gonna happen.

Darth Reign 11-24-2006 08:58 PM

Recently, the president said the draft may be an option. I also heard that the Marines are thinking about the proposal.

Samnmax221 11-24-2006 09:03 PM

Don't get your panties in a bunch. This is the same old crazy Democrat who tried it years ago, won't draw more than 5 votes. Face it conscription into the US Military has been dead since the Reagan Administration.

Darth Reign 11-24-2006 09:09 PM

You are probally right. Maybe it will just fade away.

Emperor Devon 11-24-2006 09:25 PM

In the unlikely event it is true, there's always Canada. ;)

Samuel Dravis 11-24-2006 09:36 PM

Apparently the guy came up with it to prevent our friendly Congresspeople from sending us to war too quickly. I suggest actually holding them accountable if that's what the purpose is. It's rediculous to actually have to hold their children hostage just so they don't start a war.

"That's it G.W., better not get uppity or we're gonna get Jenna and send her in first!"

Spider AL 11-24-2006 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221:

Face it conscription into the US Military has been dead since the Reagan Administration.

I highly doubt that the US government would have any qualms at all about re-introducing the draft, should they feel the need to invade somewhere else and start a war on a third major front. After all, they'll need the troops in such an eventuality. And frankly, a little propaganda here, a little scare-mongering there... and the US public would shut up and accept it.

However, let's say for a moment that your original proposition- that conscription is totally deceased, is bereft of life and rests in peace- is correct.

Well, there are ways to increase the number of gullible young men and women joining the military that have nothing to DO with conscription:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032&page=1
- Army recruiters diabolically misleading students...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...cruiting_push/
- Totally idiotic advertising campaign for recruitment, equally misleading...

Frankly, who needs conscription? :rolleyes:

Jae Onasi 11-24-2006 10:07 PM

I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.

Samnmax221 11-24-2006 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.

Conscription is the tool of Stalin's and the Hitler's, it should have no place in country such as ours. I'm willingly joining the Air Guard to pay for my College, if I was being forced to serve my country it would be an entirely different manner. Any Country that will force me to serve is not a country I would want to serve, I am nobodies slave and will not subordinate my goals to the goals of the country.

Spider AL 11-24-2006 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.

So in effect, you want to punish committed moralists for being so... so... so MORAL!

I may have couched that sentiment in a non-serious way, but I'm very serious, and it's a very serious issue. Anyone who objectively looks at the armed forces of any major world power cannot fail to realise that those armies are literally there to enact the immoral will of corrupt power centres. Therefore anyone who wishes to participate by joining the army is either poorly informed or worse, amoral themselves.

Your idea of emulating the policies of other nations that demand national service is tantamount to desiring that those who disagree with the army's perennially immoral acts around the world should be FORCED to participate in those acts. And if they don't wish to participate, they're to be treated like criminals and do community service.

Quite reprehensible, in short.

Emperor Devon 11-24-2006 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.

As a student who's not even gotten out of college, I find the idea that I'd have to set aside my studies to serve time in the military or do community service repugnant.

For adolescents, many schools require community service. But making legal adults do involuntary and possibly payless labor? If you're going along with that, you should have ALL adults do forced service for their country, or it's plain age discrimination.

Your husband might serve in the military, but just because he does doesn't mean everyone else should. I've got grades to maintain, and the idea that I should perform service for my country before I'm even at the stage to hold a career is questionable. I already disagree with the U.S. government on a number of issues. Conscripted labor would be enough to have me moving to Canada. Even in Communism, you're given payment for your services.

This idea sounds only a step away from the government using civilians as workers they don't pay. Labor without compensation comes awfully close to slavery...

Please elaborate on your idea. So far, it seems to imply the government would have the right to force me to scrape graffiti off walls or get screamed at by a drill sergeant every morning. Those are jobs for volunteers or convicts. If I intended to be a worker, I wouldn't be bothering with an education. :dozey:

TheTexasPirate! 11-25-2006 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
As a student who's not even gotten out of college, I find the idea that I'd have to set aside my studies to serve time in the military or do community service repugnant.

For adolescents, many schools require community service. But making legal adults do involuntary and possibly payless labor? If you're going along with that, you should have ALL adults do forced service for their country, or it's plain age discrimination.

Your husband might serve in the military, but just because he does doesn't mean everyone else should. I've got grades to maintain, and the idea that I should perform service for my country before I'm even at the stage to hold a career is questionable. I already disagree with the U.S. government on a number of issues. Conscripted labor would be enough to have me moving to Canada. Even in Communism, you're given payment for your services.

This idea sounds only a step away from the government using civilians as workers they don't pay. Labor without compensation comes awfully close to slavery...

Please elaborate on your idea. So far, it seems to imply the government would have the right to force me to scrape graffiti off walls or get screamed at by a drill sergeant every morning. Those are jobs for volunteers or convicts. If I intended to be a worker, I wouldn't be bothering with an education. :dozey:


Well I dont think they are re-instating slavery so PAYLESS work you will not do.
The draft will take people from 18 to 42 to serve in the United States millitary.
Not "scrape grafiti from the walls", you have been misinformed.
Also if enroled in college you do not have to serve in the millitary.
I think if they would go to our extencive prison system they could get alot of vollenteers with out having to resort to the draft.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...smiley-089.gifhttp://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...ilies/Army.gif :tank1:

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Even in Communism, you're given payment for your services.

Last time I checked the people who served in the Gulags weren't paid, or even fed well.

Emperor Devon 11-25-2006 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTexasPirate!
Well I dont think they are re-instating slavery so PAYLESS work you will not do. {snip}

I was talking about Jae's idea. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221
Last time I checked the people who served in the Gulags weren't paid, or even fed well.

Good thing the Russians weren't Communists, then. ;)

TheTexasPirate! 11-25-2006 12:35 AM

It was Senator Rangel that brought it up Wasn't it? The reinstating the draft.

Nancy Allen`` 11-25-2006 12:37 AM

Before you start bashing Bush on this...

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives...rryDraft-X.gif

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Good thing the Russians weren't Communists, then. ;)

Well I don't know a better word for a government that restricts the Economic and Personal freedoms of the individuals living under it, whether they like it or not. Karl Marx said himself that it would only work if he was in charge, I doubt it could even work then. I will never surrender my freedoms or property to anyone "for the sake of society", I don't give a damn what incompetent schmuck's you want to help, you're not taking my property or my freedom to do so.

Spider AL 11-25-2006 12:45 AM

Quote:

Well I don't know a better word for a government that restricts the Economic and Personal freedoms of the individuals living under it, whether they like it or not.
This is tangential, but you've just described most of the governments in the world, including your own, and mine. Nobody is free to earn without also paying to the state amounts that are dictated by the state, and personal freedoms? What little personal freedom we have (that has been won in recent decades by popular movements) is being eroded as we speak by constant destruction of civil liberty.

Just a nice little happy thought for you. Communism? It's never been done. Neither has democracy. Nor capitalism, in fact. Those are all pure political ideals. What WE have, are completely different mongrel systems of governance.

TheTexasPirate! 11-25-2006 12:47 AM

I have tried to enlist in the millitary several times but I have 2 felony convictions and did not graduate from high school, I have a GED.

Jae Onasi 11-25-2006 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Please elaborate on your idea. So far, it seems to imply the government would have the right to force me to scrape graffiti off walls or get screamed at by a drill sergeant every morning. Those are jobs for volunteers or convicts. If I intended to be a worker, I wouldn't be bothering with an education. :dozey:

I never said it would be unpaid work. :) Anyone drafted in the US got paid, same thing would happen for those who conscientiously object. If it was part of the national culture, things like scholarships would be held for that person til s/he got done with the service. Or the service could be deferred til after school, which would be to the country's advantage in some cases--having licensed paramedics, nurses, doctors, lawyers, CPAs, etc., doing their service after they finish school would benefit them (with extra experience) and the country (who would have a variety of professionals serving besides the 18 year olds--they need the med and legal pros). Anyone not wanting to serve in the military because of objector status could do work stateside, say in public health clinics, legal aid, etc., etc., etc....

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
This is tangential, but you've just described most of the governments in the world, including your own, and mine. Nobody is free to earn without also paying to the state amounts that are dictated by the state, and personal freedoms? What little personal freedom we have (that has been won in recent decades by popular movements) is being eroded as we speak by constant destruction of civil liberty.

I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30. I'm sick of the notion that I was born owing anyone else in this world anything, but now it is common to hear people talk about how "We're all in this together whether we like it or not".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
Just a nice little happy thought for you. Communism? It's never been done. Neither has democracy. Nor capitalism, in fact. Those are all pure political ideals. What WE have, are completely different mongrel systems of governance.

Any Government class will teach you that there is no such thing as a pure ideology, I don't need to hear it again.

Spider AL 11-25-2006 01:10 AM

Quote:

I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30. I'm sick of the notion that I was born owing anyone else in this world anything, but now it is common to hear people talk about how "We're all in this together whether we like it or not".
Things like social security and national healthcare are positive things precisely because they are concepts by which one can adhere to a high moral standard. Those with power have responsibility above and beyond those without power. Money allows one to influence society, so the more money you have, the more responsibility you have to use that money morally.

If you decide that you have no moral responsibility to your fellow citizens, you have essentially chosen to be amoral.

As for your country's "social security pool going bankrupt", I'm not qualified to comment. But if we accept your assertion, it would seem yet another reason to campaign against your corrupt system of governance, this time for mis-managing public resources. ;)

Quote:

Any Government class will teach you that there is no such thing as a pure ideology, I don't need to hear it again.
It's an important thing to remember, since we're told constantly to hate specific ideologies, and are given spurious reasons (if any) for hating these ideologies. Actually capitalism and socialism would both be excellent ways to run a state, if they were EVER EMPLOYED. We've never gotten close to either, let alone democracy.

Jae: Still flagrantly immoral, for the reasons I posted above.

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
If you decide that you have no moral responsibility to your fellow citizens, you have essentially chosen to be amoral.

They can very well go and pay their own way like I have, yet they refuse to and and attempt to win the sympathy of those who are not incompetent. The fact they I am successful doesn't make me a slave to those who are not.

Spider AL 11-25-2006 01:25 AM

Quote:

They can very well go and pay their own way like I have, yet they refuse to and and attempt to win the sympathy of those who are not incompetent.
Hmm. Basically equivalent to "Get a job you bum!"

And morally speaking, the fact that you are "successful"- by which I must presume that you mean that you have a bit of cash stored up at the moment- gives you responsibilities as well as privileges. The wellbeing of the society you have "succeeded" within, depends directly on its citizens taking their moral responsibilities seriously.

The more people take their moral responsibilities seriously, the better the quality of life for the whole society becomes.

Quote:

The fact they I am successful doesn't make me a slave to those who are not.
Slave? It's your decision whether to be a moral man or an amoral man. Nobody can compel you to be moral, so slavery is hardly a suitable analogy. You either decide to be moral and accept the responsibilities that go with morality, or you decide to be totally self-interested and therefore amoral. Either way, the burden you carry is self-imposed.

Det. Bart Lasiter 11-25-2006 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
Those are all pure political ideals. What WE have, are completely different mongrel systems of governance.

I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy.

Emperor Devon 11-25-2006 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
If it was part of the national culture, things like scholarships would be held for that person til s/he got done with the service.

Are you implying that this draft should only be people around college age?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Or the service could be deferred til after school, which would be to the country's advantage in some cases-- having licensed paramedics, nurses, doctors, lawyers, CPAs, etc., doing their service after they finish school would benefit them (with extra experience) and the country (who would have a variety of professionals serving besides the 18 year olds--they need the med and legal pros).

Why not just let them do their jobs themselves? If someone graduates from college as a doctor, chances are they're going to work as a doctor.

The idea that people would benefit from forced labor I'm skeptical of. It's hard to get a good experience out of something when you're doing it against your will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Anyone not wanting to serve in the military because of objector status could do work stateside, say in public health clinics, legal aid, etc., etc., etc....

And if you just don't want the country to be an American-Communist hybrid?

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
Slave? It's your decision whether to be a moral man or an amoral man. Nobody can compel you to be moral, so slavery is hardly a suitable analogy. You either decide to be moral and accept the responsibilities that go with morality, or you decide to be totally self-interested and therefore amoral. Either way, the burden you carry is self-imposed.

I've got plenty of morals, I take responsibility for my own actions and don't expect everyone else to take care of me, whats more moral then that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac
I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy.

More contempt for the Ivy league? :lol:

TheTexasPirate! 11-25-2006 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221
They can very well go and pay their own way like I have, yet they refuse to and and attempt to win the sympathy of those who are not incompetent. The fact they I am successful doesn't make me a slave to those who are not.


There are many compitent, and employable people on welfare, that are the drain on our SSI and that is the reason that it is going bankrupt before I am going to be able to collect any of the money I have been putting into it for the last 20 years.

I think that had there been compulsory millitary service, there would be less of this burden on our society, that there is today. I think the Draft will be a good idea.

Spider AL 11-25-2006 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy.

Elitist oligarchy, Plutocracy, call it what you will. It's not capitalist, and it's definitely not democratic. At best the US can be called "state capitalist" which is extremely far from the pure form.

(edit)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221:

I've got plenty of morals, I take responsibility for my own actions and don't expect everyone else to take care of me, whats more moral then that?

Even if you've never partaken of national healthcare or the welfare state yourself, a moral man would wish to provide help to others regardless of whether he HAD been helped in the past, or whether he might need help in the future. The moral man doesn't require payment for fulfilling his own civic responsibilities.

Secondly another point is that your opportunity to "make your way" and "succeed" was provided by a society based upon the moral spirit of co-operation. Without society as a whole, your "success" would have been that much more difficult to come by.
(/edit)

Samnmax221 11-25-2006 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL
Elitist oligarchy, Plutocracy, call it what you will. It's not capitalist, and it's definitely not democratic. At best the US can be called "state capitalist" which is extremely far from the pure form.

Still the freest country on the face of the planet but still not free enough yet.
Examples:
Incomes Taxes
Affirmative Action
Tariffs
Smoking Bans
Abolition of Drugs
Bans on Stem Cell Research
State Abortion Bans
ETC....

Rogue15 11-25-2006 01:51 AM

that would suck. not for me, but for all those that don't want in. esp those with undiagnosed conditions such as A.D.D., bipolar, etc.

Nancy Allen`` 11-25-2006 01:56 AM

We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want.

Windu Chi 11-25-2006 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want.

Now, this is where I can agree.

TheTexasPirate! 11-25-2006 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want.



Yes that would be a nice right, but there is always the fact that you could be on someones list as well then it wouldnt be such a good idea.

Mace MacLeod 11-25-2006 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221
I'm willingly joining the Air Guard to pay for my College, if I was being forced to serve my country it would be an entirely different manner. Any Country that will force me to serve is not a country I would want to serve, I am nobodies slave and will not subordinate my goals to the goals of the country.

Uh, if you're willingly joining the Air Guard to pay for your college tuition, you're also volunteering to serve your country. That's the whole reason why they're willing to pay for your schooling, remember? If their money's good enough for you, so are their service requirements. Especially as you turn around and say things like this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221
I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30. I'm sick of the notion that I was born owing anyone else in this world anything, but now it is common to hear people talk about how "We're all in this together whether we like it or not".

But everyone else's taxes can pay for your education though, right? Health care and social security are funded from the same source as the military: everyone's taxes. You decry having to pay anything to fund those "incompetent" people who can't make their own way, but you're quite happy to suck at the same public purse when it suits you. Why would you need to do that if you're such a "successful" guy? Just a teensy bit hypocritical.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.

Israel's strategic situation in no way resembles the US. It's a vastly smaller country surrounded on all sides by enemies, and has been more or less under constant attack from outside and from within since its formation. The US has no such pressures and a much larger military, so the only reason they would even consider conscription in this day and age is just the sheer incompetent misuse and poor deployment of said military.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTexasPirate!
There are many compitent, and employable people on welfare, that are the drain on our SSI and that is the reason that it is going bankrupt before I am going to be able to collect any of the money I have been putting into it for the last 20 years.

I think that had there been compulsory millitary service, there would be less of this burden on our society, that there is today. I think the Draft will be a good idea.

And how exactly would spending more money training, equipping and paying all those people as soldiers be less of a drain than welfare? I do believe that military personnel also get pretty good health care deals, far better than your average stiff on social assistance (correct me if I'm wrong, Jae). The current welfare state costs taxpayers far less money than would enlarging the military to absorb it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want.

I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to assume that this was a misguided attempt at humour or irony, rather than the most retarded thing I've read all week.

Dagobahn Eagle 11-25-2006 11:35 AM

Quote:

I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.
In addition, in Israel they've actually gotten their sorry butts around to draft women as well as men. Good people.

I disagree with this whole "the draft is a violation of my freedom"-deal, but I do have something against the jailing of people who refuse to participate. Prison for political ideology doesn't smell good to me.

Quote:

Conscription is the tool of Stalin's and the Hitler's, it should have no place in country such as ours.
Hitler also had a dog. I say we ban all canines.

Quote:

I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30 [...]
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Take it to the "Why Socialism is Evil and All Bums Are Lazy" thread.

Quote:

And if you just don't want the country to be an American-Communist hybrid?
It'd be nice if you stopped pulling the Communism/Hitler cards. Seriously, it's getting annoying.

Quote:

I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to assume that this was a misguided attempt at humour or irony, rather than the most retarded thing I've read all week.
Bet you anything it was sarcasm.

Darth Reign 11-25-2006 12:54 PM

I thought the drafting age was from 18 to 25. The lottery draft starts at the age of 20, and then they proceed to 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Only as needed. Did I miss something?

Mace MacLeod 11-25-2006 01:20 PM

^^^That's if they institute a draft at all, which I seriously doubt.

Spider AL 11-25-2006 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

I disagree with this whole "the draft is a violation of my freedom"-deal,

Care to elaborate on your reasoning here? I see no logical nor moral reason for approving of conscription.

(edit)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221:

Still the freest country on the face of the planet but still not free enough yet.
Examples:
Incomes Taxes
Affirmative Action
Tariffs
Smoking Bans
Abolition of Drugs
Bans on Stem Cell Research
State Abortion Bans
ETC....

The US certainly has more freedom for its citizens than some countries do, but I wouldn't be too quick to regurgitate the oft-repeated axiom "the US is the most free country in the world" if I were you.

When calculating "freedom", one must assess the impact that the populous has on the electoral system, how much impact the public has on policy, etcetera etcetera. The US doesn't score very highly on these points. In fact, some quite poor, relatively underpriveliged nations have exhibited more democratic electoral practices than the US and the UK. Add to this the fact that the US public is lied to by their rulers on a daily basis, and one must come to the conclusion that it's not all that free as a society.

As for smoking bans in public places... your right to wave your arm around ends at the tip of my nose. You can do what you like as long as it doesn't affect me adversely. Passive smoking affects people so smoking bans are the only moral solution.

I agree on... yes, all your other bullet points. Even your point on income tax, as taxation as it currently stands is an inefficient way of getting the rich to live up to their responsibilities. Much more efficient taxes could be brought to bear.

(/edit)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.