Start the draft, or get out

[Mr_Perceptive]

well
going to jail for refusing sounds like a threat
but maybe it should be more in the able body kinda thinking.
despite what alot of soldiers think
boot camp is very tough and I know some guys who actually crack under training
we need to rethink who qualify to serve
and how to best use them
we can`t even admit feeding crap(MRE) to our soldiers can be a bad idea.(battlefield anorexia)

Actually, boot is a rebuilding process. You take youung men and now women and you rebuild them in the way of your Service so they will be more effective in that environment, which in this case is the only environment that counts. I was a DI for many years and the methods employed are tried and true and effective. Oh, there are a few losers and others who can't make the grade. You then evaluate them to see why. If it is an attitude issue ,then you give 'em no free ride. If it is something else, and there is a long laundry list of these, then you manage the situation so as to get the best out of both them and the needs of the Service. For example, I had one recuit who was terrible in many ways military but I recommended him as a medic. He was a successful one and is now a practicing physician.

[Plane]

Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread.  Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft.  No??  Did you not start this thread?  Do you not "stand by what it says"?

Lanya quite clearly condensed the meaning of the article into a simple title. If you read the article, the captains who authored it are very clear that they feel compulsory service is necessary to win in Iraq. They explain Iraq's situation on the ground and why the surge only moves the insurgents, as opposed to destroying them.

It is an interesting article.

Yet, instead of reading it and commenting on it. You attack Lanya. I don't know why you all continue to treat her in such a terrible fashion. We have a few women on this board, whose viewpoints would be very nice to keep, yet for whatever reason you and a few others treat Lanya in the most ungentlemanly of manners.

   I also would like to encourge gentle behaviors .
   Not only for being more appropriate, but also for being more effective.

[BT]

What the f---? No, BT, this isn't about wanting liberties protected without doing anything to protect them. This is about wanting liberties protected. Conscription is not a protection of liberty. Duh. BT, you spoke of the purposes of the founding of the government. The government was founded to be a servant of the people. Conscription reverses that and makes the people the servants of the government.

What rubbish. Certainly the government was founded as the servant of the people and it is constituted of the people. Ron Paul did not give up his citizenship when he went to Washington elected by the people and he is certainly no less a citizen when he speaks for the people. He simply became a member of a body that crafts the laws that serve the people. One of those laws is conscription.

You may disagree with what the collective body determines is the best way to serve the people but to say government is not comprised of the people is nonsense.

It is not an US vs Them scenario. Because we are them.

[Mr_Perceptive]

What the f---? No, BT, this isn't about wanting liberties protected without doing anything to protect them. This is about wanting liberties protected. Conscription is not a protection of liberty. Duh. BT, you spoke of the purposes of the founding of the government. The government was founded to be a servant of the people. Conscription reverses that and makes the people the servants of the government.

What rubbish. Certainly the government was founded as the servant of the people and it is constituted of the people. Ron Paul did not give up his citizenship when he went to Washington elected by the people and he is certainly no less a citizen when he speaks for the people. He simply became a member of a body that crafts the laws that serve the people. One of those laws is conscription.

You may disagree with what the collective body determines is the best way to serve the people but to say government is not comprised of the people is nonsense.

It is not an US vs Them scenario. Because we are them.

Astute and well-formulated, BT.

[_JS]

When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In thisrepect, please pull up a posting of mine where I was derogatory toward any woman. Are you not now generalizing as you indicate many in this forum do already?

In this case it is just a miscommunication of my Southern dialect.

I was using "you all" as a plural, as opposed to "you" the singular (in the South, at least where I'm from). I, in no way, was accusing everyone from a certain political viewpoint. I was accusing a certain group of individuals, of which Sirs is one.

The "you all" or "y'all" in my statement was indicting those that tend to pick on Lanya in a personal way. They know who they are and I have made this complaint before (you were not involved and my apologies if you felt accused).

Lanya contributes to this forum often and I have never seen her act in an untoward way towards anyone on a personal level. She may get carried away with something she believes passionately about (who here doesn't?) but she does not warrant the treatment she receives from some.

We need more female viewpoints in here, yet she is treated very poorly.

[BT]

We need more female viewpoints in here, yet she is treated very poorly.

If she is treated poorly, and specific examples would be appreciated, i doubt it has to do with her gender.

[Mr_Perceptive]

When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In thisrepect, please pull up a posting of mine where I was derogatory toward any woman. Are you not now generalizing as you indicate many in this forum do already?

In this case it is just a miscommunication of my Southern dialect.

I was using "you all" as a plural, as opposed to "you" the singular (in the South, at least where I'm from). I, in no way, was accusing everyone from a certain political viewpoint. I was accusing a certain group of individuals, of which Sirs is one.

The "you all" or "y'all" in my statement was indicting those that tend to pick on Lanya in a personal way. They know who they are and I have made this complaint before (you were not involved and my apologies if you felt accused).

Lanya contributes to this forum often and I have never seen her act in an untoward way towards anyone on a personal level. She may get carried away with something she believes passionately about (who here doesn't?) but she does not warrant the treatment she receives from some.

We need more female viewpoints in here, yet she is treated very poorly.

JS, I, too, am guilty of rashness as well. Even though I have two Master's, I am afraid I revert often to my Marine Corps Sergeants Major personna possibly too often (as my wife tells me often). The Professor tells me this occasionally as well and even though he was an Intel puke, he is sometimes correct. Not often, mind you.... 

I attempt to hold women in the highest regard as I truly beleive they have a larger burden than we as men in many ways.

[Universe Prince]

What rubbish. Certainly the government was founded as the servant of the people and it is constituted of the people.

No, it is constituted of representatives, politicians elected by a portion of the people. Don't confuse the government with the public. They are not the same.

Ron Paul did not give up his citizenship when he went to Washington elected by the people and he is certainly no less a citizen when he speaks for the people. He simply became a member of a body that crafts the laws that serve the people.

No one but you has said a thing about giving up citizenship. Also, there is a clear difference between being conscripted into military service and voluntarily choosing to run for public office then getting elected.

You may disagree with what the collective body determines is the best way to serve the people but to say government is not comprised of the people is nonsense.

If we had a direct democracy, you'd be right, but we don't and you're not. The government is comprised of a relatively small number of people who are elected by a portion of the people, or those hired to work for the government. As some folks back in the 1960s might attest, the government does not always represent all the people. Indeed, part of the problem with a democracy, even a republic, is that a majority can force their will on others. Indeed, in a republic this does not even require a majority of the people, just a majority of politicians responding to political pressure from a small portion of the people. So please don't hand me some elementary school nonsense about the government is the people. No, it isn't, and you know damn well it isn't. If the government was the people, we'd have a much simpler tax code and would very probably have pulled out of Iraq if we would even have sent troops in the first place.

It is not an US vs Them scenario. Because we are them.

Of course it is not an Us vs. Them scenario. Conscription, however, is still a matter of the government using force to coerce people into military service. While perhaps it would be nice to live in some political ideal where the government only ever expressed the will of all the people, in which case conscription would be a matter of enlisting people who wanted to enlist in military service, you and I both know that is not the reality of the situation.

[Amianthus]

The government is comprised of a relatively small number of people who are elected by a portion of the people, or those hired to work for the government.

Indeed, I heard somewhere that most of the US Government is run by 6 families. Notice how Bush, Kerry, and Gore are all related (and all related to British royalty)? Today's news that Obama and Cheney are cousins kinda reinforces the point...

[Universe Prince]

Only citizens?  During the war of 1812 one of the issues to be settled was the impressment of sailors into Englands Navy who claimed American citizenship.

Last I checked, we were not discussing the war of 1812.

I don't consider the defense of society to be optional because with no defense the society will not be able to continue. The effect is that of "The Triumph of the Meme" competing social orders may gain at the expense of a society that defends itself poorly , ultimately to the point of destruction. There may be some substitute for military service for an individual to consider as a means of strengthening his society ,but for the society, there is no substitute for having an armed force adequate to the task of defense.

So regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?

In modern times we don't always call them Kings but there are rulers who reign for their lifespans with the power of kingship and the society's they head have no problem forcing the people available to serve in in anysort of waythe king wants.  Should a society that elects its government have no right to demand service of its members? Won' the result eventually be the growth of more repressive society's at the expense of the less?

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. The government should exist to protect the rights and liberty of individuals. Conscription does not do so. And as I said before we have done a nice job of maintaining a military with voluntary enlistment.

The strategic value of Iraq has many parts, one of these parts is its role as flypaper for the Al Queda movement. Al Queda has decreed war on the US and their potential for growth is huge , handing them a failure and killing a lot of them is likely the best thing we can do right now to prevent their success in their goals of growth and destruction.

And yet, Al-Qaeda is growing. Why is apparently a mystery because no one wants to consider that our military presence in the Middle East could be a cause of resentment. And no one seems to want to consider that creating a live training ground for terrorists with targets they can kill might not be the best way to combat Al-Qaeda. I do realize that many people think the fighting in Iraq is somehow about protecting American society, but as best I can determine, those many people are not correct. The conflict in Iraq is about American hegemony. Whether that is needed is another discussion for another time.

[Plane]

I don't consider the defense of society to be optional because with no defense the society will not be able to continue. The effect is that of "The Triumph of the Meme" competing social orders may gain at the expense of a society that defends itself poorly , ultimately to the point of destruction. There may be some substitute for military service for an individual to consider as a means of strengthening his society ,but for the society, there is no substitute for having an armed force adequate to the task of defense.

So regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?

Reguardless of the society , th social order fnds some means of self defense elese it ceaces.

The strategic value of Iraq has many parts, one of these parts is its role as flypaper for the Al Queda movement. Al Queda has decreed war on the US and their potential for growth is huge , handing them a failure and killing a lot of them is likely the best thing we can do right now to prevent their success in their goals of growth and destruction.

And yet, Al-Qaeda is growing. Why is apparently a mystery because no one wants to consider that our military presence in the Middle East could be a cause of resentment. And no one seems to want to consider that creating a live training ground for terrorists with targets they can kill might not be the best way to combat Al-Qaeda. I do realize that many people think the fighting in Iraq is somehow about protecting American society, but as best I can determine, those many people are not correct. The conflict in Iraq is about American hegemony. Whether that is needed is another discussion for another time.

Isn't Al Queda shrinking at a rate slightly greater than the rate we shoot them?

What was the maximum membership?

[Universe Prince]

Indeed, I heard somewhere that most of the US Government is run by 6 families. Notice how Bush, Kerry, and Gore are all related (and all related to British royalty)? Today's news that Obama and Cheney are cousins kinda reinforces the point...

Cute, Amianthus. But I'm not one of those folks who believes in an conspiratorial oligarchy. If you go back far enough, and connect all the right dots, most people are somehow related. I'm sure if wanted to try we could find a way for Albert Schweitzer, Prescott Bush and Barack Obama to all be related.

[BT]

No, it is constituted of representatives, politicians elected by a portion of the people. Don't confuse the government with the public. They are not the same.

The portion of the people who vote. Not voting is a voluntary action. The government is comprised of representatives elected by the people who vote and these are the same representatives who pass conscription laws. Of the people for the people and by the people.

[Universe Prince]

So regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?

Reguardless of the society , th social order fnds some means of self defense elese it ceaces.

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Isn't Al Queda shrinking at a rate slightly greater than the rate we shoot them?

Is it? Last I heard the N.I.E. suggested that Al-Qaeda is not only growing but that the conflict in Iraq is a recruiting tool. Possibly things have changed, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it has.

[Universe Prince]

No, it is constituted of representatives, politicians elected by a portion of the people. Don't confuse the government with the public. They are not the same.

The portion of the people who vote. Not voting is a voluntary action. The government is comprised of representatives elected by the people who vote and these are the same representatives who pass conscription laws. Of the people for the people and by the people.

The portion of the people who vote for the wining candidate, which, as we all know, does not always constitute a significant majority. And as I have experienced personally, sometimes the person for whom one votes ends up not actually representing the voter as the person indicated he would while campaigning for office. So, no, the reality on the ground is not of the people, for the people and by the people. It's a nice quote, probably looks nice in cross-stitch, but that isn't how things work.

Considering you're a guy who criticizes me for not being pragmatic and realistic, I find it a bit odd that you're trying to sell this idealistic, oversimplified, elementary school stuff.