HR 5741

[bigalpha]

I think it would be a good thing.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-H5741/text

 

[5-90]

I do hope you're being facetious.

That bill directly contravenes the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (look it up.)

And, I don't think that mandating military service or "volunteer community work" (read: "voluntold") would do anything actively useful for society. It would be far better served to have incentives for doing volunteer work (nominal stuff, but enough to prime the pump,) than to require it with an illegal law anyhow.

I've already written Representative Lofgren about it. Probably just whistling into the wind, but my objection is logged.

(And no, I wouldn't be subject. Did a term in the Air Force, and I'm pushing forty fairly quickly. My wife gets out of it for being fifty-five.)

Mandated service (I'm assuming this is unpaid, unless it's miliary) is foolish at best, and the reinstution of American slavery at worst. Either way (or any way in between,) it's not a good idea.

And, did you note the sponsor of the bill? Charlie Rangel is already getting sent up for ethics violations - so I wonder if this isn't meant to be some sort of "red smoke." Hmm...

 

[ECKSJAY]

I think it would be a good thing.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-H5741/text

He's introduced this garbage for years with zero backing and it's always shot down. Doesn't matter who is pResident. And no, mandatory service isn't a good thing.

 

[mcantar18c]

From a military standpoint, I'd much rather serve with somebody who WANTS to be there than somebody that just wants to get out. With a volunteer service, the only people that should be there people who want to be there... in theory at least.

 

[Boatwrench]

From a military standpoint, I'd much rather serve with somebody who WANTS to be there than somebody that just wants to get out. With a volunteer service, the only people that should be there people who want to be there... in theory at least.

Flip side of coin.

A draft of enlistees (heck include some officers) will allow the USA from developing a professional or an elitest "warrior" class and keep the civilian population in touch with the needs and reality of what serving means.

Today in every level of government are professional politicians that have never served in the military yet are voting on veteran's benefits, military pay, military hardware, etc.

Think of the saying "America is not at war, the military is. America is at the mall." I grew up the product of 'The Greatest Generation' every uncle, my Dad and my grandfather served in WWII because the nation was at war. During my developing years the US was flooded with vets and people who had worked for CCC and WPA. The country was prospering.

I enlisted & served with both draftees and volunteers. I understand your statement it is easier to serve with someone who wants to be there, however even with an all volunteer force there are still the disgruntled personnel who go out of their way to make everyone's life miserable.

Just a thought.

Even after writing the above, I do not believe manadtory military service is needed to be a citizen, this isn't space cowboys or whatever that movie was. However mandatory public service is not a bad idea. VISTA came by when I was a kid and took us on field trips around San Francisco, staffed day camps for education & crafts and organized street games.

 

[mcantar18c]

A draft of enlistees (heck include some officers) will allow the USA from developing a professional or an elitest "warrior" class and keep the civilian population in touch with the needs and reality of what serving means.

First off, I strongly believe in not allowing people to enter into the military as an officer, be it by draft, ROTC, or contract. I'd much rather (and do) have superior officers that have been in my boots once upon a time and know first hand what they're sending their men to do. An officer that started as an enlistee has my full respect, while somebody that entered as an officer... well... I stand at attention for them cause I have to. That's not to say they aren't competent enough, just that they don't have the experience necessary to be a leader (case in point: Obama).
Now as far as the elitist warrior class... this can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. From an Orwellian standpoint, an elitist warrior class can result in something like what happened with the Romans, or as described in 1984, but honestly I don't see that happening. Being part of an elite group boosts your morale and encourages soldiers to be at and stay at their best... think of the attitude that SF guys have around infantryman and Rangers.

Today in every level of government are professional politicians that have never served in the military yet are voting on veteran's benefits, military pay, military hardware, etc.

In my opinion, prior service in the military should be a requirement for a politician to be able to have a say in anything concerning the military (and to be a presidential candidate, but that's another issue).

Think of the saying "America is not at war, the military is. America is at the mall." I grew up the product of 'The Greatest Generation' every uncle, my Dad and my grandfather served in WWII because the nation was at war. During my developing years the US was flooded with vets and people who had worked for CCC and WPA. The country was prospering.

I see this more as an issue with society's way of thinking (and I do see this as an issue) rather than a reason to set up a draft. In fact, a draft could push society to have a negative view of military service, mores than its already starting to. In fact, the draft during the Vietnam era is probably what pushed society from the WWII viewpoint of war and the military to what we have today.
So in other words... I agree more people should serve. However, it needs to be a personal choice rather than a requirement. More people should WANT to serve, and that's a change that needs to happen in society rather than in gov't regulations.

I enlisted & served with both draftees and volunteers. I understand your statement it is easier to serve with someone who wants to be there, however even with an all volunteer force there are still the disgruntled personnel who go out of their way to make everyone's life miserable.

Hence the "in theory" part
My point was, I'd much rather be standing in the middle of a combat zone, trusting the guy next to me to have my back in life or death situations, when the guy standing next to me is a SOLDIER, not a teacher from Ohio that happened to be sent there. Ya get what I'm sayin?

 

[Boatwrench]

Ya get what I'm sayin?

Absolutely. Just offering the flip side of the coin. We have two different prespectives, age being one, rank probably another and definitely the service we belong to along with assigned MOS. Guess what I did? Hint look at my name.

I have had plenty of crummy officers that came up through the ranks and have had some outstanding officers come from the factory.

While assigned as a staff stud had a flag officer once tell me the reason reservists were activated in such large numbers was so more of the nation would know someone serving.

I firmly disagree with you regarding the requirement to have served in order to hold office. How many of the Founding Fathers served in the military? How many of the great leaders or captains of industry the spurned the Industrial Revolution?

Ehh but disagreement is what keeps our country centered and makes it great.

 

[joe_peters]

Having served over 10 years in the Marines, 1969-1979, and having spent time in units with draftees--stick with a professional military.

What we do need to do is start pulling back and taking care of our own Nation. Way past time to give up this "The World's Policeman" post-WWII attitude.

 

[Boatwrench]

What we do need to do is start pulling back and taking care of our own Nation. Way past time to give up this "The World's Policeman" post-WWII attitude.

We have a winner!

but trying that got us wrapped up in Kosovo

 

[joe_peters]

Somalia, the Balkans, Beirut, tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Japan, Germany, U.K.--way past time those forces are brought home and force reductions are undertaken.

 

[5-90]

We have a winner!

but trying that got us wrapped up in Kosovo

Hm.

I may have some idea where you're going with that (although I'd have to look a few things up to validate my own thinking...) but please explain. How would it have caused us trouble if we'd left the Kosovars to their own devices? Your grasp of weltpolitik is rather better than my own, so I'd like to know what you're thinking...

 

[Boatwrench]

Hi Jon,

Top of my foggy head...

If the US did not step in to the Kosovo genocide the country would have lost stature with the other nations of the world. The US was starting to back out of non-oil regions since the Soviets were done. World opinion & press got us involved in stopping that genocide as "The only remaining 'Superpower' left" That and probably a possible route for a pipeline from Abejerwan (sic) and the other break away former Soviet Republics to the Agean Sea and southern Europe.

Rhwanda genocide, we were starting a ramp up when the French led UN forces stepped into that dog pile. The French secured the country brought relative peace between the Hutus and Tustis. San Francisco sent a water purification team over there after the machetees stopped.

Tom

BT---BT---BT

I finally bought an MJ yesterday, paid to much but the body is real clean.

 

[joe_peters]

I finally bought an MJ yesterday, paid to much but the body is real clean.

ENOUGH TALK--lets see some pictures!