military service for everyone?

all i have to say is, if you want me to go to war for you, i will go to war against you just to **** up your day.

I do not believe in slavery. IMO, forced conscription is tantamount to slavery.

Very cool post.

Functionally, it's not the worst idea. Beats the crap out of socialized medicine. And being forced isn't the worst thing in the world - you see new parts of yourself for a while. In a way boundaries are comforting and nurturing, but they don't make you who you are.

But compulsion and militarism? Oil and water. If someone isn't in it just for the sake of violence, don't make them learn how to use the gun.

It's a problem here in the USA also. Our military is largely stocked with non-professional soldiers, while our mercenary-contractors and prisons get the cream of the antisocial crop.

The way I see it; no one really knows how to go about military action in this day and age. The great powers are like teenagers handling each other at a sleep-over-birthday-party Nor does anyone know how to go about compulsion. Everyone just thinks 'this is a good idea, lets make everyone do it'.

My solution would be to quit leaning on both; legislate egoism, freedom, and independence, but that's just me.

My opinion as well!

Someone on this forum, and I wish I could remember who, presented the notion that an all volunteer military was producing a mercenary force, rather than civilian. I was fairly well convinced, in a tentative sort of way.

I sure wish I could remember who that was. One of our better writers, I'm sure. Perhaps Phoenix will help me remember.

Re: military service for everyone?


The question can only be properly addressed if you include the notion of women in the draft as well as the men. Otherwise, you're not dealing with military service for 'everyone'.

There are at least two Presidential candidates here in the US who have come out in favor of requiring women to register for Selective Service (the military draft)

Both Obama and Hillary have answered in the affirmative when asked about this requirement.

I think it would be interesting to hear from some ladies what they think about this.

It hasn't become a huge issue yet, but wait til after the Dem convention. If either Hillary or Obama receive the nomination, the opposition can ride this issue (and others) to victory. ( I actually don't think either of them will get the nomination, however.)

But c'mon ladies. Tell us what you think. Should women be required to participate in the military draft?

hanno- Problem is, sometimes those parts are in different sections of the area that the solider is in. If you have ever been to a V.A. hospital, you will understand what I mean.

In front of the hospital, there is a sign, "The price of freedom is seen here". The first time that I saw that sign, it brought tears to my eyes.

rog- Sorry. I can't remember who wrote the thread about mercenaries.

Absolutely no forced servitude. I served in our military, but it was voluntary. None of my children has served, and I am content with that. If we can get enough volunteers for a war like Iraq, we can get plenty for one that is justifiable.

is it bad i blame the soldiers just as much as bush for the violence in iraq ?

every man makes his own decisions, other men try to sway you as much as possible in your choices.

Why don't you blame the ones who start wars?

Terrorists attacked the US in 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001

Countries including Iraq and Afghanistan sheltered, financed and protected terrorists.

Saddam invaded his neighbor in 1989.

This war never was ended and Saddam was supposed to comply with the conditions the UN set when Saddam accepted a cease fire in 1990. He didnt comply. Far from it and the UN took the action it was on record as supporting.

you misunderstand, i blame anyone who supports a warmongering society in any way. and america has no interest whatsoever in destabilizing the region to keep control of the resource that keeps our trucks moving and our ships , err, sailing.

life isnt fair, if people think it takes war and violence to keep control of resources so be it. ill stay out of it.

Re: military service for everyone?


Hmmm...

I guess, if woman were forced to do a military service like young men, the whole situation at the troop would change.
Superiors would not treat their recruits that rude. In fact, I believe the whole behaviour there would become more humanly.
Well, also leading a war could be more difficult. Just imagine the picture of a woman on the front, in your local newspaper. I guess, many people would be shocked. An outscream in public would be the logical reason.

Well, that's what I think would happen, if woman were forced to do military service.

My personal opinion on this is, that compulsion is the false way. Everyone should have the right to decide what he or she wants to do. I still remember how I felt, when I had to do military service. Indeed it was just wasted time.
Some people say, that you are aware, that life can be difficult when you have been at the army. There is some truth in it, but other persons did a civilian service or were just not capable. They also live a good life, without having experienced a bad time.

But back to the original question. Even though, I am against compulsion, I guess it is easier to motivate an army of volunteers for a war.

I agree with this to a point - except that- especially in America, opportunities for further education and/or training which would lead to a job with a living wage are not equally available to all young people. I know young men personally who, given the choice, would have gone to college, but had no means to do that unless they joined the military. I know people personally, who, once they were eighteen and dropped from the foster care roles, would have had no place to live, unless they joined the military.

You know what - I never thought about this before- but now that I do- I think it's a great idea because I think it would be an equalizing force in our society. I think that every young person who enjoys the benefits of the freedom this country affords should be encouraged to contribute to it.
Because I don't think that burden should be carried soley by those who are given lesser opportunities by virtue of who their daddy is or was and how much money he was or wasn't able to make.

*OGIONIK- I love your signature- Holla!

No, no forced military service.

And if so, yes, as a woman I would be prepared to do it as well. I think it would make it more apparent the absurdity of many of the situations.

Women dying, having to leave their children or forgo the opportunity to bear children in order to serve: this would rally a large force of thought through all the generations and sexes.
We'd be forced to confront the situation more directly.

After all, a young man or the odd young woman dying or being wounded in the service is easily overlooked by many.

It's a little more difficult when it is your daughter, your grand child, your husband, when it is in your interests to care.

However, the notion of forced service, in this world is appalling to me.

And, I am rather keen on the idea of those who of their own volition who choose to serve, receiving certain priviledges which civilians would not.

As it stands, I find it disgrace how many veterans and those who put a lifetime of service in are often treated or forgotten.

Nothing is perfect; but I think the main thrust of it is all is that we must find a way to see those who serve as human first; soldier second. We need to find a way to connect to it and care more about people; rather than causes.

After all, that disrespect and ability to turn eyes away from our shared humanity is a big fuel to war and instability.

I'm naive in some respects, but not stupid. Some in my family have chosen to serve, one being a woman who is like a second mother to me.
She is paying the price of it with her health, and a shortened life.

She, and others like her, who do jobs many of us wish not to do, deserve our respect and care.

true, if every person had to join the military we would appreciate "freedom" alot more. well in reality we are just economically better off, well not even, we just have more buying power. everyones in debt. so not really free at all lol.

but then you have to take into account not everyone is willing to blow peoples brains out so they can run their gasoline powered vehicles.

this might be sad but it finally struck me how money works.

i mean can banks really issue money from nothing? coupled with a "bribe" based government that cant lead anywhere but to corruption, and negligence of the people.

we are screwed no matter how far we try to fix this system, its based on slavery and consolidation of monetary power. i dontg care if i sound like a crazy, until today i was actually pro government/money. but , i just cant blindly follow society anymore its too idiotic. i wish i could say i support america but i cant anymore, ive been trying to find some way to explain our actions reasonably for a while now and i havent found anything but ignorance and inability to accept reality .
all i did was start asking questions. there were no logical answers.

i doubt we will make it out of this recession in one piece, seriously.

its just all, it all BS and sleight of hand, propaganda and advertising. there is no substance.

there are problems both with forced conscription and with voluntary army. those re: forced conscription were largely discussed (i would add that if you have general duty, add women to the mix. otherwise it's also gender discrimination (of men)).
When it comes to "voluntary" army, the outcome usually is that your army will consist of those who are from the lower economic class. Those that can afford it, will largely avoid military. So you have the government (consisting largely of upper class) deciding on war and sending army force consisting largely of lower class to war. U.S. Army also consists of many non-citizens who wish to gain citizenship this way. Sure, it's a "choice" - but it's hardly a free and equal choice, because we're not playing on leveled playing fields.

A universal draft would have many benefits to the U.S.:

1- It would induce some young people to join another branch of the military (Air Force/Navy), and then those branches would have a greater pool of recruits. Some recruits do make a career of the military. The respective service would then be able to select the best from this larger pool.

2- Some citizens of the United States, as living an entire life as civilians, can best identify with only their respective region and regional culture. A universal draft would help make for an American identity.

3- It would likely end immigration of those immigrants that are just here for the "good times." If one's children had to serve in the military, then immigrants would likely come here with the intention of assimilating.

4- It would be a force for peace in the world, since enemies of the U.S. can presently think the country's military can be spread too thin, with multiple theaters of operations, to be effective. With a universal draft this would not be a potential tactic. It would also prevent any country from using nuclear weapons, since the U.S. can than occupy that country with a military that had enough boots on the ground, so to speak. The mutually assured destruction paradigm of the Cold War probably needs to be replaced today with a military large enough to make any use of nuclear weapons a waste, since the country would know it would be occupied by a military that had enough soldiers to effectively end that regime.

Well, yeah, but if we're going to do time and scrap, might as well rob a liquor store.

It's a telling issue - like most of Europe is just running around with flowers up their asses when we want to settle Iraq's hash - yet they do this and for the first half of the last century they mauled each other and did their best to get the rest of the globe riled up... And then their all pinkos on top of it.

Someone posted in another thread, (some) socialism in the US would be better than plutocracy. That only makes sense when your socialists are wearing tie-dye shirts. That's more or less the status quo here, either that or the disenfranchised that can't afford their kids medication, but wait till people really start waiting on the G for what they need.

Government control is like a drug. The people in the US still have the final call - we don't like to think about when we're going to have to make it because for most of us to agree it'll have to be ugly - but in the mean time if we maximize individual and social - I mean, is it really suspension of disbelief? As opposed to this sunshine civic hero crap - give us the guns and the money and it'll be cool - If those things aren't either neutral or a solution to a problem we're screwed anyway, so we might as well do our own thing, and either way, when someone says 'fork it on over' whatever comes next is going to be a drag.

Like many others I have been on both sides of this issue but what really made a lasting impression on me is the experience of my late father-in-law. Sam Pascoe was of Irish-Welsh stock. Sam was the most loving, non-violent, religious, and moral man I have ever met. Largely self educated but only a course or two away from a college degree he was summarily drafted at the beginning of WWII. Being a modest man most of the details of his life I learned not from him but from my wife who was the apple that fell not far from the moral trunk of Sam's life tree of 32 years (brother Dave was 34).
His relatives insisted they both apply for conscientious objector status to remain home-- neither Sam or Dave would hear of it. Asked later by his daughter of 16 years why he didn't stick to his morals and not opt out on those moral grounds, he replied that he indeed had stuck to his morals. The way he saw it, his country had called him to service and he could not refuse. "But Dad, how can you say it was moral to blindly follow orders to fight and kill just because your country says so?" asked Anna. Well, it seemed Sam felt his country was moral in coming to the aid of others in a time of dire need. What Hitler was doing to his fellow Europeans was wrong and, being well read, Sam had heard intimations Der Feurer was even killing large numbers of specific civilians just because he thought them a sub-species and/or problematic. Sam had asked the wise man's question: "Who will come to my aid when Hitler shows up at my door?" The answer to that question tugged at his moral base and informed his decision, so he had to go to war. Wars have been fought for glory, treasure, territory, and religious belief -- all good reasons, given that all participants have a dog in the fight. But that seldom, if at all, is the case. But America has added another reason: to help the underdog. Sure there are those who would, essentially, label the U.S. as imperialist, but I don't see any supportive evidence for this assertion.

But to answer helmi's primary question of mandatory male service (military service for one's country is, in no, way servitude and certainly not slavery) should be required of all males, barring the obvious exceptions. I do not believe women should be so required, although they are certainly welcome if so inclined.

Before I was drafted I felt that I should not be required to be in the service. After my service I felt the opposite, but why? Financially it cost me money but looking back this was an experience I could not obtain for any amount of money let alone get paid for and receive free food and clothes during the time.

An aside: By definition a mercenary is "a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party."
So a national army composed entirely of volunteers is not a mercenary body.

So what was that experience? It was the chance to see Bright, caring, patriotic, and determined individuals ready to protect the country that allows this very debate, some not even American citizens. When I entered the service from college I thought the previous adjectives were not applicable to anyone in the service voluntarily. But, Aside from those graduates from all the military academies, I found many people who were all the above and more.
Secondly, I came to realize those threats all around us in this world. Those threats were always there but for centuries the two oceans formed a protective barrier for America. No more, for even those who would harm us are here on our shores using the very technology we invented and perfected to do us harm. They use our very liberties to plot against us and aid them in our destruction. Some, after 9/11 asked: "Why do they hate us?". A question academically interesting but futile and irrelevant when it comes to protecting ourselves.
Lastly I gained a sense of what it meant to be an American. It is really amazingly easy! Black, Afro-American, Cuban, Colombian, Mexican, Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, East Indian, German, Welsh-Irish, insert religion here, Taxi driver, Doctor, lawyer, computer scientist, I saw them all in the Army, of all places. All good people, all Americans, All on our side.
Yes our side. Am I proposing an "us against them" mentality? Not at all, but there are demonstratively those out there who wish us, well, dead

Self sacrifice is good for the soul, hell we could probably use more people like John McCain whose self sacrifice benefits many. Nobility may or may not be in short supply but a little bit more wouldn't hurt America. Mandatory military participation for American males is not servitude it is time well spent with good people in service to the greatest collection of people the world has known, Americans.

Respectfully,

JM