Compulsory Military Service Bill

[torontoboy92]

well, I do not support compulsory laws, they carry the subtle stench of authoritarianism. I do believe that as sad as it may be, it seems in our nature as humans that we must war now and then, and the need for a military will most likely always be present, but if forced too join, I believe it breads resentment. Over all, doubts this will pass.

I am proud to say as an American, that our nation has among the best military on earth, and it is all volunteer. I am sad that so much of our GDP goes to it -_-

 

[Ambrocious]

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

It's all in the documentary "The Obama Deception" which was made in March of 2009. Once again, it is correct. "Fall of the Republic" is part 2 of The Obama Deception and both should be seen. These documentary films are on YouTube in full.

We need to stick together guys, the storm is almost here.





.

 

[hotatlboi]

It's all in the documentary

You're hilarious.

We haven't heard about it in the media because this bill has been periodically brought up over the last 20 years by certain members.

It never goes anywhere and never gets and kind of serious support, this time will be no different.

 

[Ambrocious]

You're hilarious.

We haven't heard about it in the media because this bill has been periodically brought up over the last 20 years by certain members.

It never goes anywhere and never gets and kind of serious support, this time will be no different.

The hope you hold is good but the ignorance you embrace is dangerous. But this is no time to fight, just know that we must work together to stay together or we may turn on each other in a blind rage.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Hey guys, check out the selective service website:

http://www.sss.gov/

Also, in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Local draft boards are there waiting to go to active status. It's all in the plan.

 

[Ambrocious]

One other thing here. Compulsory service is the same as saying forced slavery. How often have you seen inmates picking up trash on the sides of the highways? This compulsory service, if grafted, it will force those between the ages of 18 to 42 to engage in FORCED services in order to enforce the growing military services and homeland security.

An even larger police state; expanding into your streets where people that you know will be oppressed for resistance to this corrupt system and you will be able to see very similar things in the United States as we have seen in countless other fallen republics. We will eventually enslave ourselves and we will be but tools and pawns in an effort to geld our hearts and minds into complete submission. We won't even realize what we have done to ourselves until the damage is done. This is why it is important to learn what we can now.

Being made to do anything unwillingly is a form of slavery and it is inherently, acclimation to servitude. Eventually people may forget that we ever lived in a republic and America may reflect the image of a communist regime of control over the people and the soldiers will become more of brute force of oppression rather than to serve and protect retribute liberty.

Learning to pay attention to the trends of the world can help anyone to be able to see into the near future. This is not magic, it is intelligence. Similar methods are used by military personnel to evaluate war time scenarios. Trends research is important if you want to know the general direction of the things to come. Knowing history is another important factor.

 

[BostonPirate]

Hey guys, check out the selective service website:

http://www.sss.gov/

Also, in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Local draft boards are there waiting to go to active status. It's all in the plan.

I have a question and I really don;t know this... do men still have to register for the draft at 18. I did in the eighties even though there was no draft. It was to make sure that if we were invaded, the army would know how to find us.

is that law still on the books?

 

[MercuryJones]

^ Or student loans or financial aid, I believe.

 

[BostonPirate]

so the law is on the books and is only called into question or enforced when you interact with the gov't while you are of draftable age.

that makes sense.

well that would be why we have a draft board and a draft infrastructure.

no conspiracy there.

 

[rareboy]

Oh you funny Americans.

As has been noted, there's not going to be any conscription after the disastrous outcome of Vietnam.

the mothers and fathers of the US aren't going to sacrifice their children this way again.

You'll never have any trouble in the US finding young men and women who want to pick up guns and fight for their country.

As has been noted, this bill keeps getting regurgitated every few years...but is political suicide for anyone who co-sponsors or really pushes it.

 

[CowboyBob]

The Obama Deception ?..... OMFG. Alex Jones is an insane right winger only out for $$ as they all are. In the same category with Glenn Beck.

Let's watch The Clinton Chronicles too.

and Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Except that in Heinlein it wasn't just military service, it was all sorts of things -- and if you signed up, they couldn't turn you down, and would have to find something for you to do even if you were a paraplegic with Tourette's.

I find this a compelling argument for it: why should someone get to vote if he or she isn't willing to invest a few years serving the country?

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.

Slimming down is theory; the fact is that they're looking for lots more qualified bodies. We ought to be able to do an operation like Iraq without (mis)using the National Guard.

Speaking of which, there's a bill I'd like to see: defining the use of the National Guard as being here to guard the nation, without an actual declaration of war on someone who has actually attacked the country.

At every election cycle.

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.

I think the point was that politicians will just feel even better about themselves when they don't have to think about any of "our boys" coming home in coffins. Given the restraint Congress showed in stampeding to shed blood in a country that never hurt us, that isn't a good thing.

Of course the solution is to find politicians with morals and consciences, not reverse the march of military technology.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Actually, the point of war is to inflict sufficient damage that the enemy will bow to your will. That can be casualties (e.g. Nazi Germany), or captives (e.g. Gulf War); the point is to remove the enemy's ability to fight or will to do so.

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

Amended.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have a question and I really don;t know this... do men still have to register for the draft at 18. I did in the eighties even though there was no draft. It was to make sure that if we were invaded, the army would know how to find us.

is that law still on the books?

you don't "have" to, but I think it's required to apply for a government job.

^ Or student loans or financial aid, I believe.

You have to, but no penalties are currently provided except being barred from a number of government benefits. In additional to those above, if you're a resident of the U.S. but not a citizen, and fail to register, you can never become a citizen. Also you won't qualify for government loans for housing.

 

[BostonPirate]

Actually, the point of war is to inflict sufficient damage that the enemy will bow to your will. That can be casualties (e.g. Nazi Germany), or captives (e.g. Gulf War); the point is to remove the enemy's ability to fight or will to do so.



Amended.

lol

point taken

 

[JB3]

You have to, but no penalties are currently provided except being barred from a number of government benefits. In additional to those above, if you're a resident of the U.S. but not a citizen, and fail to register, you can never become a citizen. Also you won't qualify for government loans for housing.

You also won't be able to get any federally-funded student loans.

 

[Kulindahr]

You also won't be able to get any federally-funded student loans.

That was one of the "above".

 

[NotThatCreative]

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.

Killing people is wrong, therefore we should refrain from technological advances on our own side? Yes, you definitely are placing such a high value on human life there. If we're going to fight the war, I want it done with as few US casualties as possible (preferrably as few civilian casualties as possible too). I don't give a damn about how many of the Taliban's fighter we kill. They hurt us, so we're fighting them. This is the way the world works. And I'm not going to apologize for using Predator drones and other technology to advance the war with minimal risk to our own personnel as possible.

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

Not true. Abraham Lincoln had a son who fought in the Civil War. FDR had three sons who fought in WW2. And many of the former service members in Congress are also hawks (Senator McCain, for example).

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

I've never served in the military. I have family and friends in it though. My family's fought in every war this country's fought in, starting back when we were still just colonies. My cousin's about to go on his second tour in Afghanistan, after having done three in Iraq, and tours in Bosnia, Somalia, and Iraq during the Gulf War as well. This discussion affects me through my family and friends (if you're asking if I have a personal stake in this matter). I don't see how whether or not I've served changes the facts.

I am proud to say as an American, that our nation has among the best military on earth, and it is all volunteer. I am sad that so much of our GDP goes to it -_-

Not that much of our GDP goes to the military. 4.7% for FY2010. In contrast we spend 5.7% of our GDP on education. It's a large part of the national budget (23%, I believe), but that's because of the divvying up of responsibilities and jurisdiction between federal, state, and local government.

 

[BostonPirate]

Killing people is wrong, therefore we should refrain from technological advances on our own side? Yes, you definitely are placing such a high value on human life there. If we're going to fight the war, I want it done with as few US casualties as possible (preferrably as few civilian casualties as possible too). I don't give a damn about how many of the Taliban's fighter we kill. They hurt us, so we're fighting them. This is the way the world works. And I'm not going to apologize for using Predator drones and other technology to advance the war with minimal risk to our own personnel as possible.



Not true. Abraham Lincoln had a son who fought in the Civil War. FDR had three sons who fought in WW2. And many of the former service members in Congress are also hawks (Senator McCain, for example).



I've never served in the military. I have family and friends in it though. My family's fought in every war this country's fought in, starting back when we were still just colonies. My cousin's about to go on his second tour in Afghanistan, after having done three in Iraq, and tours in Bosnia, Somalia, and Iraq during the Gulf War as well. This discussion affects me through my family and friends (if you're asking if I have a personal stake in this matter). I don't see how whether or not I've served changes the facts.



Not that much of our GDP goes to the military. 4.7% for FY2010. In contrast we spend 5.7% of our GDP on education. It's a large part of the national budget (23%, I believe), but that's because of the divvying up of responsibilities and jurisdiction between federal, state, and local government.

cool

my ancestors fought against the Brittish in the first invasion of Boston. we were seafaring people and traders... I think we got our letters out of Saint domangue before eventually siding with the Colonies as privateers.

I think we agree on the use of the technology, just not so much on the moral implications of it, and half way agreements is better than nothing.

Predator Drone attackes against the taliban in the border regions should actually increase in my opinion. but we have to be serious, the public is entirely disconected from the deaths we are causing that are sometimes civilian collateral damage. that does nothing but make the conflicts continue and get even more complicated

in any case

thanks for the thought out response

 

[bankside]

Oh you funny Americans.

As has been noted, there's not going to be any conscription after the disastrous outcome of Vietnam.

the mothers and fathers of the US aren't going to sacrifice their children this way again.

You'll never have any trouble in the US finding young men and women who want to pick up guns and fight for their country.

As has been noted, this bill keeps getting regurgitated every few years...but is political suicide for anyone who co-sponsors or really pushes it.

I emphasised a point you made and I don't think it will be as easy in the future.

I know people who have served in the military for what might be thought of as patriotism backed by well-contemplated philosophical reasons. Or, I know one guy who fits that description. I know many more who serve for patriotism backed by not much choice to do anything else.

In a country like the States with massive social inequality, where they're only just starting to get health care, the incentives rise substantially to sign on to a way of life where some kind of health care is provided, some kind of career is laid out for you, and a whole bunch of problems are solved before you even get there.

But with greater equality of opportunity, universal health care, and greater general prosperity, fewer people will make that choice

Yes, you heard it hear first: health care reform will lead to military recruitment problems. Or maybe not problems, but certainly downward pressure.