Start the draft, or get out

[BT]

I'm not sure which is a worse abridgment of individual rights, military conscription or incarceration. But seeing who is in favor of military conscription is a bit revealing. It is a clue as to who actually gives a damn about individual rights and as to who thinks the government should try to control society.

One of the main purposes for the founding of this government was to protect liberties. At one time all able bodied males were defacto members of the militia. So no, i don't think conscription into the modern military is an abridgment of individual rights. It is part of the social contract.

[Universe Prince]

One of the main purposes for the founding of this government was to protect liberties. At one time all able bodied males were defacto members of the militia. So no, i don't think conscription into the modern military is an abridgment of individual rights. It is part of the social contract.

Maybe my understanding of a militia is different than yours, but seems to me there is a fairly substantial difference between being part of a civilian militia and being conscripted into the modern military. If we still depended on civilian militia for defense of the land, maybe I would be more inclined to agree with your point, but we don't, and I'm not. Your comment seems to me rather like saying, at one time all able bodied males were expected work and earn a living and contribute to society so enslavement isn't an abridgment of rights, just part of the social contract. I cannot agree.

[Plane]

One of the main purposes for the founding of this government was to protect liberties. At one time all able bodied males were defacto members of the militia. So no, i don't think conscription into the modern military is an abridgment of individual rights. It is part of the social contract.

Maybe my understanding of a militia is different than yours, but seems to me there is a fairly substantial difference between being part of a civilian militia and being conscripted into the modern military. If we still depended on civilian militia for defense of the land, maybe I would be more inclined to agree with your point, but we don't, and I'm not. Your comment seems to me rather like saying, at one time all able bodied males were expected work and earn a living and contribute to society so enslavement isn't an abridgment of rights, just part of the social contract. I cannot agree.

Oh no , you don't advocate a more professional corps of soldiers and more separation between the citizens and the military?

I don't ,our libertys preservation should be our own responsibility.

Our military should be us.

[Universe Prince]

Oh no , you don't advocate a more professional corps of soldiers and more separation between the citizens and the military?

No, I did not say that.

I don't ,our libertys preservation should be our own responsibility.

Our military should be us.

So are you saying this in support of conscription or are you advocating a return to civilian militia and the elimination of a standing army?

[BT]

Our military should be us.

Precisely.

Seems some want liberties protected without having to do any heavy lifting.

Selfish attitude in my book.

[Plane]

Oh no , you don't advocate a more professional corps of soldiers and more separation between the citizens and the military?

No, I did not say that.

I don't ,our libertys preservation should be our own responsibility.

Our military should be us.

So are you saying this in support of conscription or are you advocating a return to civilian militia and the elimination of a standing army?

What is conscription?

Are we obliged to defend our society , or should we consider its defense optional?

A king woud have conscripts under threat , anopen and free society obliges its own defense how?

[kimba1]

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)

[Universe Prince]

Our military should be us.

Precisely.

Seems some want liberties protected without having to do any heavy lifting.

Selfish attitude in my book.

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.

Your comment to Plane, however, is interesting. I have to wonder what sort of "heavy lifting" you think is going on Iraq that is protecting anyone's liberty here in America. More than that, you seem to be suggesting that people who oppose a draft are somehow unwilling to do anything to protect liberty, which in itself implies that serving in the military is the only sort of "heavy lifting" available. And it's interesting that you're advocating conscription yet you're suggesting that other people who don't desire to force other people into military service are the selfish ones. It is a slight variation on the old tried and false concept of "you're only opposed to [insert name of government program here] because you're selfish." I expect that of folks who have no better argument to make. They have no real reasoned argument to make, no substantive support for their position, so they resort to a self-aggrandizing casting of aspersions. And so I'm left wondering, is that the best you have? Or are we to believe you've gained some power to know what other people are and are not willing to do to protect liberty?

[Universe Prince]

What is conscription?

Conscription, in general usage and in the context of this discussion, is the forced enlistment of citizens into military service. But I suspect you knew that already.

Are we obliged to defend our society , or should we consider its defense optional?

Are you obliged to defend yourself? Or is that optional? Can you conceive of a situation in which you might not want to "defend society" through military service? Can you think of ways other than military service to defend what you consider worth defending about society?

A king woud have conscripts under threat , anopen and free society obliges its own defense how?

A king would have conscripts under threat. And incarceration is somehow not a threat? As for defending the nation, we have done a nice job of maintaining a military with voluntary enlistment. A military that would be more than sufficient for defense of society and the nation, if the government would stick to defending society and the nation. I almost hate to ask, but what, exactly, would a draft to supply troops to the conflict in Iraq accomplish regarding the defense of our society?

[Plane]

What is conscription?

Conscription, in general usage and in the context of this discussion, is the forced enlistment of citizens into military service. But I suspect you knew that already.

  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.

Are we obliged to defend our society , or should we consider its defense optional?

Are you obliged to defend yourself? Or is that optional? Can you conceive of a situation in which you might not want to "defend society" through military service? Can you think of ways other than military service to defend what you consider worth defending about society?

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.

A king would have conscripts under threat , an open and free society obliges its own defense how?

A king would have conscripts under threat. And incarceration is somehow not a threat? As for defending the nation, we have done a nice job of maintaining a military with voluntary enlistment. A military that would be more than sufficient for defense of society and the nation, if the government would stick to defending society and the nation. I almost hate to ask, but what, exactly, would a draft to supply troops to the conflict in Iraq accomplish regarding the defense of our society?

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 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.

[_JS]

How is fighting in Iraq defending civil liberties at home? I've heard a lot of talk about "defending our freedom", but there really is no threat in Iraq to any of the Bill of Rights in the United States, nor was there when Saddam Hussein was in power beforehand.

This same line was used for Vietnam as well and it never proved true, though we lost Vietnam.

The least courtesy someone could provide is telling kids why they are both killing and possibly dying, being maimed, or otherwise being physically or psychologically injured with an honest statement.

I don't believe it has anything to do with "defending freedom at home." Again, that same crap was fed to kids in Vietnam and it never came to be. If anything, Nixon stole freedom while they were over there.

[Mr_Perceptive]

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.

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?

[Mr_Perceptive]

I concur with the article.

Let's begin immediately, as soon as the Services indicate they are ready (DIs trained and ready, facilities ready and available, etc.)

The only deferments available would be for medical disability and perhaps a few others, tightly constrained in numbers.

Evasion would result in incarceration and/or loss in citizenship.

I'm not sure which is a worse abridgment of individual rights, military conscription or incarceration. But seeing who is in favor of military conscription is a bit revealing. It is a clue as to who actually gives a damn about individual rights and as to who thinks the government should try to control society.

There are rights given to an individual and rights expected by the State. In some instances, those of the State outweigh those of the individual. Seeming as you are apparently a libertarian, I can see why your view and mine on this issue would differ.

My view is that if the State needs you, then you respond. If not, then get the hell out. Meaning, if you do not agree with the State's call, then get out like those who went to Canada. Just be willing to take the heat when or if The Man finds you.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Our military should be us.

Precisely.

Seems some want liberties protected without having to do any heavy lifting.

Selfish attitude in my book.

Happened in late Rome and is happening here...Decadence, ladies and gentlemen, pure decadence.

[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.

When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In this respect, 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?

  This happens a lot , it s worth thinking about how it is that the questioning of an issue tends to become bipolar and two sided  when there is often more than two ways to consider the question.

   A dynamic process is evidently natural to the process of argument that causes sides to form as a single faction defines its opposition as unitary whether it is or not to begin with. Also within a faction there may be an effort at consolidation.
    So that within and without the heard there is gravity to the center and repulsion from the outer fringe.

    It is tough to be a mustang and remain one.