Compulsory Military Service Bill

[c750dt]

House bill 5741 is currently in debate. Can read through the bill itself here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5741

If passed, we look at the possibility of every person between age 18 and 42 having two years of compulsory military service. For conscientious objectors, a forced two years of desk work or civilian service. The bill most likely won't pass. However, why would we need this bill? What makes it more effective than bringing back the draft in case of a war in which we don't have enough soldiers? Is the government hiding something? Or do they just need to feel more control over us?

 

[Joshua_me]

It *amazes* me that we haven;t heard a peep about this in the media.

 

[BostonPirate]

both sides of the aisle try this stunt every so often. It is a way of protesting the war. By making people afraid of being sent off to die, they add pressure on the gov't to end the conflict.

It won't go anywhere, but it is always interesting when it happens.

America is very proud of its all volunteer military, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

thanks for the thread!

 

[CowboyBob]

This appears to be conscription of another color.

In a way it may be good. Don't most countries have some type of this?

 

[BostonPirate]

thats a charlie rangel bill.

he's just trying to distract the press and focus from his own woes at the moment.

 

[iman]

thats a charlie rangel bill.

he's just trying to distract the press and focus from his own woes at the moment.

That's wrong. Rangel has been pushing compulsory service bills for many years, long before his present troubles. Rangel is a Korea Vet.

 

[BostonPirate]

That's wrong. Rangel has been pushing compulsory service bills for many years, long before his present troubles. Rangel is a Korea Vet.

but the date on this new bill.... july 15th 2010

its a political stunt and makes me think much less of Mr Rangel. Our troops need the full attention of the congress, and he is a distraction with this.

I get that he is making a war protest. I support that.

the timing of this seems a bit suspect. Why, if he has done this in the past, did he do it on the eve of his hearing?

 

[glorff]

Read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlien if you want to understand the reason that this keeps coming up. It will make sense if you do.

 

[BostonPirate]

Read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlien if you want to understand the reason that this keeps coming up. It will make sense if you do.

I don;t think restricting votes to only those who have served in the military as a real sollution, to be honest.

It made good fiction, and Heinlein forever after had to tell people it was a story and not a political statement on his part.

 

[hotatlboi]

horrible idea. won't go anywhere

 

[MercuryJones]

However, why would we need this bill? What makes it more effective than bringing back the draft in case of a war in which we don't have enough soldiers?

It's a way to have an adequately resourced military that spreads the responsibility over everyone, rather than the frequent class driven enlistment or draft.

 

[DeeChai]

The military is slimming down it's numbers and relying on more automation, technology, and special forces. The future trend is an elite force that can dominate even with inferior numbers and is mobile and quick. A compulsory army just doesn't mesh with modern military doctrine.

 

[BostonPirate]

war by remote control.

its all the rage.

no risk, just death to your oppponents.

perfect for politicians to never have to be held accountable for ordering the deaths of other human beings.

 

[DeeChai]

war by remote control.

its all the rage.

no risk, just death to your oppponents.

perfect for politicians to never have to be held accountable for ordering the deaths of other human beings.

Since when have politicians ever been held accountable for anything in this country?

 

[MercuryJones]

Since when have politicians ever been held accountable for anything in this country?

At every election cycle.

 

[BostonPirate]

Since when have politicians ever been held accountable for anything in this country?

what a loaded question!

well you could say that they are at the ballot box when they are up for re election. But the nation has been polarized since Nixon. the parties hate each other and the public has no trust in any of them.

 

[NotThatCreative]

It *amazes* me that we haven;t heard a peep about this in the media.

It's a Congressman Rangel bill without a single co-sponsor. It won't get anyway. One of those frequently brought up but never goes anywhere bills. No one, not the people, not the military, and not the politicians, wants to bring anything resembling the draft back.

This appears to be conscription of another color.

In a way it may be good. Don't most countries have some type of this?

Some do, like Israel. I doubt 'most' do though. It's a terrible idea though. What we need is not a bunch of amateurs who'll be out in two years and don't really want to be there serving in the military. The presence of draftees is often listed as one of the many reasons casualties in Vietnam were so bad.

war by remote control.

its all the rage.

no risk, just death to your oppponents.

perfect for politicians to never have to be held accountable for ordering the deaths of other human beings.

I'm sorry, but this statement is so liberal "world community" stereotype it would make me laugh if I thought you were being satirical. If we've chosen to end the lives of others, why would we be remorseful that we managed to do so without losing our own lives as well? Isn't minimization of risk one of the major directions of all military innovation? Bullet-proof vests also do that, so does armored vehicles. Do you propose we get rid of those that way when we go to war more of our own troops die and the politicians are better "held accountable" for the deaths of the human beings we're at war with? Does it not even occur to you how ridiculous and naive you sound when you say stuff like this? Death to our opponents is the purpose of war. And I'm all for doing that in a way that reduces our own casualties as much as possible. It requires an unbelievable level of naivete to think otherwise. You want to say the war is bad, fine. But arguing that what we need to do is unnecessarily risk the lives of ourselves and/or our fellow-citizens is an argument that'll get you nowhere in the real world.

 

[BostonPirate]

If we've chosen to end the lives of others, why would we be remorseful

because killing people is wrong. If you remove the human factor then you have forgotten the reason why we even bother having morals.

Of all the crackpot arguements I have heard in support of war, that one has got to be truly one of the nuttiest.

If risk was a factor politically and lethaly, for the people that make the decision to go to war, then we would never go.

BTW..... when did YOU last serve in one of those war things?

 

[DeeChai]

Is remote warfare immoral? It does allow us to reduce casualties on both sides. Wouldn't politicians be held accountable if we didn't implement technology that reduced casualties?

 

[BostonPirate]

Is remote warfare immoral? It does allow us to reduce casualties on both sides. Wouldn't politicians be held accountable if we didn't implement technology that reduced casualties?

it doesn't really reduce both sides. we are really one of the only nations with that technology.

I mean we do have to be honest. the whole point of war is to kill enough of the other sides people until they can't defend themselves anymore and then control them through occupation.

if that is not the end result, then we have to accept regime change and the resultant chaos as acceptable and stop rebuilding nations that we decimate.

in the days of the Pharoahs, you didn;t rebuild your enemy. Once you won, you just annexed them.

that is no longer the goal of war anymore.