Completely and Totally Abolish the Military or Institute a Full Military Draft? (1 Viewer)

[TimmyBoy]

I think we should start a full military draft. Bill Gate's kids should be required to serve just like the poor man's kids. The children of Congress who come of age should also be required to serve along with the President's children if they come of draft age. If you try to avoid service, you go to jail. The US currently has treaties that would make it very easy for America to extradite people who run to Canada. So if you run away to Canada, get your citizenship revoked, can't hold a job in the US and do some time in a US prison, then after your time in prison is up, if Canada will still accept you, ship you back to Canada. Rich man trying to send his kids away has his assets frozen and seized if necessary. The draft has several benefits:

1) It holds politicans more accountable and keeps them more honest about sending troops into harm's way.

2) It will make the people more in tuned with their responsibilities as a citizen of this nation. It would be a good incentive to keep the everybody involved in the political process.

3) It insures that all citizens carry their fair share of the weight of responsibility when it comes to being a citizen of this country. Rather than having poor people carry their own weight of responsibility along with the rich man and his kids responsbilities as a citizen of this nation.

I think this draft law should be written in the constitution and can never be amended or changed ever in the future.

If we can't have a military draft, then I think we should completely and totally abolish the military. What do you think? Institute the draft or completely and totally abolish the military?

 

[TurtleDude]

the poll options are rather stupid since many of us prefer a professional volunteer army-which is what most professional officers want too. A draft is a waste of talent as well as violating the spirit that this country was founded upon.

A draft is a concession that society no longer cares about individual rights but only what is best for the group. What is best for the group is letting people who are extremely talented stay out of the military and in private sector employment where they can earn alot of money to pay taxes required to support the military while utilizing less talented people for infantry duties.

what is funny is some draft advocate will say that is unfair when by advocating a draft they have already abandoned fairness

 

[TimmyBoy]

the poll options are rather stupid since many of us prefer a professional volunteer army-which is what most professional officers want too. A draft is a waste of talent as well as violating the spirit that this country was founded upon.

A draft is a concession that society no longer cares about individual rights but only what is best for the group. What is best for the group is letting people who are extremely talented stay out of the military and in private sector employment where they can earn alot of money to pay taxes required to support the military while utilizing less talented people for infantry duties.

what is funny is some draft advocate will say that is unfair when by advocating a draft they have already abandoned fairness

That's BS, this country was founded on a citizen army not a volunteer, professional army. It's an american tradition to be suscipicious of large standing, professional armies. For most of America's history, the citizen army worked very well. And why should a volunteer force compromising mostly of people who had no other options but to join the military carry the weight of responsibility of others. I would think that everybody should carry their own weight when it comes to their responsibilities as a citizen of this nation. I think it's only fair. And why for that matter, should poorer people die to make richer people richer? It's not right, it's not fair. We should strive to make right this wrong, make the system more fairer. I don't want to carry somebody else's weight.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Heck, in alot of countries, their governments will get their two years out of their citizens and I think in some ways, it made them better people, better citizens with a better appreciation and better people overall for the most part. In Isreal, every man and woman serves whether they want to or not.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's BS, this country was founded on a citizen army not a volunteer, professional army. It's an american tradition to be suscipicious of large standing, professional armies. For most of America's history, the citizen army worked very well. And why should a volunteer force compromising mostly of people who had no other options but to join the military carry the weight of responsibility of others. I would think that everybody should carry their own weight when it comes to their responsibilities as a citizen of this nation. I think it's only fair. And why for that matter, should poorer people die to make richer people richer? It's not right, it's not fair. We should strive to make right this wrong, make the system more fairer. I don't want to carry somebody else's weight.

its not fair that some people have to pay 300,000 a year in taxes and get the same single vote as some guy who never has to worry about leftwing politicians increasing his tax burden because he pays none? the fact is its moronic to tell some kid with an IQ of 180 he ought to be in the infantry rather than at harvard medical school. Claiming poor people die to make rich people richer is the sort of moonbat psychobabble I see At DU daily

when you talk about socialist engineering with involuntary servitude you can boot the fairness nonsense out of your post

 

[jamesrage]

I think we should start a full military draft. Bill Gate's kids should be required to serve just like the poor man's kids. The children of Congress who come of age should also be required to serve along with the President's children if they come of draft age. If you try to avoid service, you go to jail. The US currently has treaties that would make it very easy for America to extradite people who run to Canada. So if you run away to Canada, get your citizenship revoked, can't hold a job in the US and do some time in a US prison, then after your time in prison is up, if Canada will still accept you, ship you back to Canada. Rich man trying to send his kids away has his assets frozen and seized if necessary. The draft has several benefits:

1) It holds politicans more accountable and keeps them more honest about sending troops into harm's way.

2) It will make the people more in tuned with their responsibilities as a citizen of this nation. It would be a good incentive to keep the everybody involved in the political process.

3) It insures that all citizens carry their fair share of the weight of responsibility when it comes to being a citizen of this country. Rather than having poor people carry their own weight of responsibility along with the rich man and his kids responsbilities as a citizen of this nation.

I think this draft law should be written in the constitution and can never be amended or changed ever in the future.

If we can't have a military draft, then I think we should completely and totally abolish the military. What do you think? Institute the draft or completely and totally abolish the military?

Having served in the military I have mixed feeling on the draft.It would be thing because all those pieces of **** anti-war protesters who get in the spotlight on terrorist(Al-Jazeera) tv would know what it is like to be in the shoes of members of the military and therefor more than likely detest their anti-war activities.
THe bad thing about a draft is that all the children of rich people would either be officers or be in non-combat jobs.Lower pay,less benefits since they do not have to intice you join,and a who lot of shitbags in the military.

We need our military so get that anti-war horse **** out of your mind.What the **** do you would think would if we abolished our military tommorrow?

 

[TurtleDude]

Heck, in alot of countries, their governments will get their two years out of their citizens and I think in some ways, it made them better people, better citizens with a better appreciation and better people overall for the most part. In Isreal, every man and woman serves whether they want to or not.

Your signature says big brother is watching you and you want a government to have the power to force people into involuntary servitude? talk about conflicted :roll:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

We need our military so get that anti-war horse **** out of your mind.What the **** do you would think would if we abolished our military tommorrow?

What do you think would happen if we abolished our military?

 

[TimmyBoy]

Your signature says big brother is watching you and you want a government to have the power to force people into involuntary servitude? talk about conflicted :roll:

I don't view it as involuntary servitude. I view it as part of your responsibilities as a citizen. With freedom comes responsibilities. You want your cake and ice cream both. You want somebody else to carry your weight and you don't want to carry your own weight.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Or should we abolish the military? We need to make this fair for everybody when it comes to peoples' lives at stake here.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush
What do you think would happen if we abolished our military?

Does the word "target" mean any thing to you?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't view it as involuntary servitude. I view it as part of your responsibilities as a citizen. With freedom comes responsibilities. You want your cake and ice cream both. You want somebody else to carry your weight and you don't want to carry your own weight.

1) you have no idea what I do or where and when I have served so stow the attitude

2) Why should some of us carry most of the tax burden-paying for the services of many who are irresponsible. I spent my HS years working my butt off so I could go to a top school. There, rather than smoking dope or getting drunk I worked my butt off so I could get into a top lawschool. I now pay tons more taxes than guys I went to HS with who spent most of their time trying to score a "lewinsky" or looking to get wasted. Why should I have to pay for these people now?

3) working hard and then having to pay almost 50% of your income (ie giving 50% of your HOURS SPENT WORKING) to the government is clearly carry your own load

 

[TimmyBoy]

1) you have no idea what I do or where and when I have served so stow the attitude

2) Why should some of us carry most of the tax burden-paying for the services of many who are irresponsible. I spent my HS years working my butt off so I could go to a top school. There, rather than smoking dope or getting drunk I worked my butt off so I could get into a top lawschool. I now pay tons more taxes than guys I went to HS with who spent most of their time trying to score a "lewinsky" or looking to get wasted. Why should I have to pay for these people now?

3) working hard and then having to pay almost 50% of your income (ie giving 50% of your HOURS SPENT WORKING) to the government is clearly carry your own load

You can stow the attitude as well, buddy. I came from nothing but I served in the military, went to school, got a degree in computer science and now write software that builds the planes that you fly on and the planes our military uses. But the software I write builds just more than planes, it builds alot of everything else. This attitude that you have towards the poor, that because you worked your butt off, a poor man's life is worth less than yours is BS. When it comes to lives being directly at stake, a rich man needs to share the same risk as a poor man, no matter how hard the poor or rich man has worked. And speaking of hard work, I know plenty of poor people who work very hard, if not harder than alot of rich folks. It's BS that I have to put my life on the line while some rich snob kicks back and doesn't have to pay the price. No amount of money can replace my life or anybody's life. So it's only fair that the rich share equal risk when it comes to something like this, otherwise, I see justification for completely and totally abolishing the military altogether where nobody serves. If the rich man and his kids aren't going to risk their lives, I am not going to risk my life either. They can find some other sucker, some other fool to do it for them, but not me buddy. If the rich man is willing to risk his life or his children's life, then that tells that their is a better chance that their is a real need to stand and fight in this particular conflict that he is willing to risk himself and his children's lives in.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I follow the example of those who lead and control this nation. I followed the example of my officers when I was in the army. If my officers were in shape, then generally I wanted to be in shape. I always followed the example of my leaders. I was fortunate to have excellent officer leadership who set a good example, but the leadership of this nation, the example that they set is not so good. So the way I see it, is why should I risk my life, when the leadership of this nation are unwilling to risk their own lives or the lives of their children? And let's keep money out of the equation here. I know I pay quite a bit in taxes too. No amount of money can replace a life.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can stow the attitude as well, buddy. I came from nothing but I served in the military, went to school, got a degree in computer science and now write software that builds the planes that you fly on and the planes our military uses. But the software I write builds just more than planes, it builds alot of everything else. This attitude that you have towards the poor, that because you worked your butt off, a poor man's life is worth less than yours is BS. When it comes to lives being directly at stake, a rich man needs to share the same risk as a poor man, no matter how hard the poor or rich man has worked. And speaking of hard work, I know plenty of poor people who work very hard, if not harder than alot of rich folks. It's BS that I have to put my life on the line while some rich snob kicks back and doesn't have to pay the price. No amount of money can replace my life or anybody's life. So it's only fair that the rich share equal risk when it comes to something like this, otherwise, I see justification for completely and totally abolishing the military altogether where nobody serves. If the rich man and his kids aren't going to risk their lives, I am not going to risk my life either. They can find some other sucker, some other fool to do it for them, but not me buddy. If the rich man is willing to risk his life or his children's life, then that tells that their is a better chance that their is a real need to stand and fight in this particular conflict that he is willing to risk himself and his children's lives in.

You sure read alot of stuff into my post so you can attack the myths you have created. If you want the rich to share equally than by all means lets make it really equal. everyone pays the same amount of taxes. Do you know which college provided the US army the most officers through Vietnam?

It was YALE.

You seem to have a real resentment of people who make more than you do. Do you have an inferiority complex? Do you also know that there are many other ways to serve? MOST PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY are not in combat roles. A urban firefighter is often a more dangerous job than most military MOS's. I also note that the people who volunteer for the gung ho high risk military jobs tend to be middle or even upper middle class-the poor tend to go for "army is the tradeschool" type stuff. My nephew is a college graduate-his father a rich harvard lawer, his mom the daughter of a millionaire industrialist-he is a 2nd LT in the SF's.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You sure read alot of stuff into my post so you can attack the myths you have created. If you want the rich to share equally than by all means lets make it really equal. everyone pays the same amount of taxes. Do you know which college provided the US army the most officers through Vietnam?

It was YALE.

You seem to have a real resentment of people who make more than you do. Do you have an inferiority complex? Do you also know that there are many other ways to serve? MOST PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY are not in combat roles. A urban firefighter is often a more dangerous job than most military MOS's. I also note that the people who volunteer for the gung ho high risk military jobs tend to be middle or even upper middle class-the poor tend to go for "army is the tradeschool" type stuff. My nephew is a college graduate-his father a rich harvard lawer, his mom the daughter of a millionaire industrialist-he is a 2nd LT in the SF's.

I am not proposing socialism in economic policy, I prefer captialism. But when it comes to the lives of people and being sent off to war, then I am all for drafting the rich into the military and putting their asses on the front lines to get shot at with everybody else. They aren't so rich that they are better than anybody else. When it comes to economics, I believe in capitalism, but we are not talking about economics, we are talking about instituting a fair draft that will also assure everybody pulls their fair share of the weight. Money cannot replace lives, so, whether you pay more in taxes or not, it's perfectly justifable to spread the risk to life equallly between the rich and poor when it comes to drafting people and sending them to the front lines to get shot at.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You sure read alot of stuff into my post so you can attack the myths you have created. If you want the rich to share equally than by all means lets make it really equal. everyone pays the same amount of taxes. Do you know which college provided the US army the most officers through Vietnam?

It was YALE.

You seem to have a real resentment of people who make more than you do. Do you have an inferiority complex? Do you also know that there are many other ways to serve? MOST PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY are not in combat roles. A urban firefighter is often a more dangerous job than most military MOS's. I also note that the people who volunteer for the gung ho high risk military jobs tend to be middle or even upper middle class-the poor tend to go for "army is the tradeschool" type stuff. My nephew is a college graduate-his father a rich harvard lawer, his mom the daughter of a millionaire industrialist-he is a 2nd LT in the SF's.

I am not proposing socialism in economic policy, I prefer captialism. But when it comes to the lives of people and being sent off to war, then I am all for drafting the rich into the military and putting their asses on the front lines to get shot at with everybody else. They aren't so rich that they are better than anybody else. When it comes to economics, I believe in capitalism, but we are not talking about economics, we are talking about instituting a fair draft that will also assure everybody pulls their fair share of the weight. Money cannot replace lives, so, whether you pay more in taxes or not, it's perfectly justifable to spread the risk to life equallly between the rich and poor when it comes to drafting people and sending them to the front lines to get shot at. It's only fair, it's only just, it's only right. Alot of people, no matter what background they come from, who volunteer for combat are stupid and niave. They don't know what they are getting themselves into and all to often it's politicans paid off by crooked companies who want to make more money that are sending the US military off to places in the name of "freedom" so that these crooked rich folks can make more money at the cost of disadvantaged, innocent lives. But that's ok, I guess since the rich pay more in taxes, it's ok to sacrafice a few thousand lives. After all, how much is a life worth to you? $250,000 dollars from their SGLI policy?

 

[TurtleDude]

I am not proposing socialism in economic policy, I prefer captialism. But when it comes to the lives of people and being sent off to war, then I am all for drafting the rich into the military and putting their asses on the front lines to get shot at with everybody else. They aren't so rich that they are better than anybody else. When it comes to economics, I believe in capitalism, but we are not talking about economics, we are talking about instituting a fair draft that will also assure everybody pulls their fair share of the weight. Money cannot replace lives, so, whether you pay more in taxes or not, it's perfectly justifable to spread the risk to life equallly between the rich and poor when it comes to drafting people and sending them to the front lines to get shot at.

the problem with your drivel is you are confusing what the purpose of a draft is for-its like lefties who scream for higher tax rates even if one demonstrates that making tax rates too high actually DECREASES tax revenue

THE ONLY LEGITIMATE purpose of a draft would be for national defense-NOT TO slake your hatred of the rich or to force the rich to shoulder military duties as well as for PAYING FOR MOST of our military hardware

the problem with your psychobabble is that MOST PROFESSIONALS DO NOT WANT A DRAFT. The fact is your egalitarian wet dream is neither wanted nor realistic

as a college boy I was one of the best skeet shooters in the around-won nationals. I was offered a place on the Army Marksmanship Unit. I was a world class skeet shooter because I could afford to shoot. Right now my contemporaries who are in the USAMU/USAST-Fort Benning are not in Iraq. They are training for world and olympic games.

rich kids often will have skills that make them more useful in support roles. I had a HS teacher who got drafted into the army during the Nam-he could type and was well versed in the early computer technology. REMF all the way.

Now come up with a rational reason for the draft rather than your class warefare blathering. social equality is not a legitimate nor constitutional reason

 

[TimmyBoy]

Ohh no, we can't have full military draft, because that would mean we can't send people off needlessly to die for senseless reasons. Why, if we instituted a draft and ignored genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda, then turned around and sent folks off to die for oil, why, that would mean we would have a revolution on our hands. And with a revolution, we couldn't keep sending folks off to die for oil and make gobs of money off investment contracts and the business of war. So the volunteer army is the better option.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ohh no, we can't have full military draft, because that would mean we can't send people off needlessly to die for senseless reasons. Why, if we instituted a draft and ignored genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda, then turned around and sent folks off to die for oil, why, that would mean we would have a revolution on our hands. And with a revolution, we couldn't keep sending folks off to die for oil and make gobs of money off investment contracts and the business of war. So the volunteer army is the better option.

die for oil-do you really believe that moonbat nonsense? :roll:

I am all for a revolution-go to Democratic Underground and the barking loons call for it daily. when its over, the libertarian party will be the major opposition party to the GOP:2razz:

 

[Kandahar]

These poll options are idiotic, and anyone who favors either of those options is absolutely insane. Yes, it's mostly the poor who serve in the military. So how does it follow that we should make EVERYONE serve? I'll bet that it's mostly poor people who become Wal-Mart greeters too; does that mean everyone should be forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter? The fact is that both the employer (the US government) and the employee (the soldier) are in agreement on the wages, benefits, and working conditions. Why do we need to alter that by forcing everyone else into a line of work that is most likely not the most productive or rewarding line of work they could be in?

And of course conscription is involuntary servitude. It's "involuntary" because I don't want to do it, and it's "servitude" because it's work in the service of another. Which part do you disagree with?

 

[TimmyBoy]

These poll options are idiotic, and anyone who favors either of those options is absolutely insane. Yes, it's mostly the poor who serve in the military. So how does it follow that we should make EVERYONE serve? I'll bet that it's mostly poor people who become Wal-Mart greeters too; does that mean everyone should be forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter? The fact is that both the employer (the US government) and the employee (the soldier) are in agreement on the wages, benefits, and working conditions. Why do we need to alter that by forcing everyone else into a line of work that is most likely not the most productive or rewarding line of work they could be in?

And of course conscription is involuntary servitude. It's "involuntary" because I don't want to do it, and it's "servitude" because it's work in the service of another. Which part do you disagree with?

Yeah and taxes are involuntary too. In my view, people don't want a draft because they don't want to put their asses on the line. They would rather pay somebody off and kick back in saftey and be unconcerned that the government, which is controlled by the rich, is ******* other folks off by bombing their countries to make more money which would eventually lead to another September 11. Then, when another September 11 hits, the rich folks who were killed in the attack will think "What!? What did we do wrong?!" While folks like me that went to Bosnia years ago, came back, tried to warn you what you did wrong but you wouldn't listen. No matter, everything has a way of coming back around. You can't kick back and sit in safety forever, even if you do oppose a draft.

 

[Kandahar]

Yeah and taxes are involuntary too.

The Constitution prohibits INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, such as a military draft. It doesn't prohibit any involuntary action whatsoever, such as taxes.

In my view, people don't want a draft because they don't want to put their asses on the line.

You're damn right I don't want to, nor should anyone be expected to do so in a free society.

They would rather pay somebody off and kick back in saftey and be unconcerned that the government, which is controlled by the rich, is ******* other folks off by bombing their countries to make more money which would eventually lead to another September 11. Then, when another September 11 hits, the rich folks who were killed in the attack will think "What!? What did we do wrong?!" While folks like me that went to Bosnia years ago, came back, tried to warn you what you did wrong but you wouldn't listen. No matter, everything has a way of coming back around. You can't kick back and sit in safety forever, even if you do oppose a draft.

Spare me this populist bullshit rhetoric, as I have never favored sending American troops into harm's way without a good reason. How is sending MORE people to die, who don't even want to be in the military, going to solve this problem? Until you figure out an answer to that, I'll assume that you aren't interested in what's best for America or the military, but are merely interested in punishing "the rich folks."

 

[TimmyBoy]

The Constitution prohibits INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, such as a military draft. It doesn't prohibit any involuntary action whatsoever, such as taxes.



You're damn right I don't want to, nor should anyone be expected to do so in a free society.



Spare me this populist bullshit rhetoric, as I have never favored sending American troops into harm's way without a good reason. How is sending MORE people to die, who don't even want to be in the military, going to solve this problem? Until you figure out an answer to that, I'll assume that you aren't interested in what's best for America or the military, but are merely interested in punishing "the rich folks."

By drafting everybody and sending them into a senseless war, they will come back demanding real accountability of our leaders. And when you have real accountability of our leaders, they will think twice before sending troops into a senseless war and it will force them to come up with a just foreign policy. This is the sort of thing that happenned in Vietnam when we still had a draft and these career politicans wised up and figuired out it is not in their best personal and private interest to continue the American tradition of a citizen army. With a professional army, it allows our leaders to act with impunity abroad with little accountability at home. It allows our political leaders to use the army for personal, private interests which in the long run creates terrorists that attack ALL Americans. And that is why I say, the rich can only kick back, stay safe for so long before it finally comes back around bites them in the ass like it did on September 11. If you think force alone is going to stop terrorism you are wrong. It will certainly increase and make the problem of terrorism worse though. It will be people like you, along with foreigners who pay for the unjust policies of the US government. The best way for this country to be safe is to base our foreign policy on real justice rather than appeasing, rewarding and acting as accomplices to criminal, foreign leaders who commit genocides and invading countries to make money and steal oil. So I guess, according to you, since a military draft is unconstitutional, then we would need to completely abolish the military and nobody will serve.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Since you don't want to serve in the military and put your life on the line, then nobody should serve and put their life on the line. Their should be no military for this country. Hope you enjoy speaking russian, chinese or german.
I know I am not going to be a sucker and fight for a people who are unwilling to fight for themselves or a foreign policy that is unjust or for the personal, private interests of the rich. The citizen army would actually be the best bet for all americans in the long run.