Should we raise the military enlistment age ????

" The weakest chink in our armour is American public opinion. Our people won't stand firm in the face of heavy losses, and they can bring down the government" Lyndon Johnson, 1968

"By God we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all!" George H., Feb 1991

Well, its clear that you have no idea of how much I personally hate war and the suffering that accompanies it. I know it, and in knowing war, I fully understand its costs individually and to the world at large. War is not glorious or heroic, and certainly a state of being to be avoided if possible. It is not possible to avoid war and all of its negative consequences when faced by an opponent who desires nothing greater than your demise. By wishing that the world would be continually at peace, will not make it so. By hoping that by giving the bully what he says he wants, will not make him into a friend. Those who oppress others are not made into democratic liberals by friendly persuasion and discussion. Bullets don't care whether you are a saint or a sinner. Weakness is far more likely to result in suffering than strength. Thats just the way of the world. Get used to it. BTW, this is a wonderful example of why everyone should spend five years in service to the nation.

As to the absurdity of your other contentions, go back and read Timbers post above. You can not justifiably equate our military nor President Bush's policies with Hitler'. The President may have overstate the case, but there is no prove whatsoever that he lied, or had some devious reason to attack Saddam's Iraq. The present administration was not alone in the sincere belief that Saddam had, or was on the point of having weapons of mass destruction and was willing to use them. UN inspections were hampered by a despotic Iraqi government that was responsible for torturing and murdering its own people in wholesale numbers. Saddam had already demonstrated his aggressive nature against neighbors, and his support of terrorism was public. The majority of Americans do not believe that the President lied to get us into Iraq, or we wouldn't have reelected him. Will there be more terrorist attacks on the United States? The intent of the radical Islamic terrorists has not changed, and so if they can get past our security and are logistically able, they will conduct further operations against the American homeland. They are not nice people, no matter how much some might like to believe it.

Amigo,

It looks as if LBJ was right, and President Bush might be wrong, doesn't it?

" A prince ought to to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, then war and it's rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease then arms they have lost their states." -guess who

A well known quote from Niccolo Machiavelli, the first "modern" political scientist. Pitty that people don't read the whole of his work. Not even many college graduates have ever read the whole of The Prince, and the best of Machiavelli is found in the Discourses.

And your point is?

" Those who put the peoples eyes out reproach them of there blindness" -I forget

What? Do you want to play "Guess the Quote?" That last one is from the Bible ... so what?

Ain't that the ugly truth . . .

Jhon Milton

Again, nonsense. Hitler assembled a war machine responsible and devoted to not the nation, not the people, not the government, not anything other than and but Hitler himself and his whim, and that war machine, led by a very small professional career military cadre, was conscript-heavy - in the Germany of the day, there was practically no career path that did not pass through the military - even the school children were militarized, taking oath of personal fealty to Hitler.


More nonsense - the warning specifically was that Iraq must not be allowed to become an imminent danger - and Saddam's Iraq not only declared intent to pursue such a course, it repeatedly, blatantly violated the terms of the Safwan Accord, up to and including thousands of both documented, even frequently, boastfully self-announced instances of firing on Coalition assets engaged in the enforcement of the no-fly provisions of the Safwan Accord, while declaring itself to be unbound by that agreement and to be in a state of war against The US and partners.



Further nonsense. The "Inspectors" - poorly named, by charter, they really were monitors at best - said no such tings; they said they were unable to verify Iraq's compliance with the proscribed weapons and capabilities disarmament and dismantling provisions of the Safwan Accord, and that such inability to perform their charter function was due to Iraqi instransigence, defiance, obstruction, and concealment.


While there is a modicum of truth to this, it wilts under the weight of the attendent nonsense. After submitting to the demand to re-admit the "Inspectors", Iraq continued and persisted in viloation of both spirit and letter of the last-chance agreement and was found to be in grave material breach of that agreement. Despite the diversionary, last-minute show-piece trotting out of what amounted to a not-yet-fully-operational missile system of proscribed capability, Iraq adamantly and defiantly contiued to fail to fulfill the simple accounting and verification requirements of the Safwan Accord, as had been Iraq's practice for over a dozen years and 17 sternly-worded UN demands that Iraq cease and desist such behavior and immediately, unconditionally, verifiably account for known proscribed weapons stores, capabilities, and production infrastructure.


Other than mention of Iraq's clearly recognized and self-proclaimed roll as a sponsor and enabler of world-wide terrorism, its practice of offering haven to known terrorists, and openly, unambiguously declaring itself to be a sworn enemy of The US, all proven fact, no connection was made between Iraq and the events of 9/11.

I submit neither portion of that statement is factual.

I submit such an observation indicates profiound misapprehension of the actuality of the situation, and further that the allegation contained therein amounts to calumny and equates to capitulation to the propaganda tactics of the Islamofascists. While "You're either with us or against us" is too simplistic and judgemental by far, I can but surmise anyone espousing a position such as that you've presented has chosen and declared sides. That would be that individual's choice, not something up to "Us".

Wow! you sure zinged me that time. I guess I'll just have to give back some of my degrees. What do you want to say? When I want to play silly games, I'll visit an thread appropriate to that purpose.

Anyway, we've drifted far from the apparent topic of this thread. Let's get back to that, shall we? BTW, Amigo have you served?

Actually the guy has a masters from Oxford. I always did think those bloody brits were overrated.

Your "non-military" compulsory service plan in exchange for citizenship rights would be unconstitutional. You would have to eliminate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Thirteenth Amendment, and the citizen and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to put your proposal into action.


U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


U.S. Constitution: Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution doesn't permit involuntary servitude except in very limited circumstances. A general compulsory national service statute (the enslavement of the entire population of a certain age group for compulsory public service for purposes other than a conscription for military service) would violate the Constitution. To be a national citizen entitled to the equal protection of the laws afforded to all other citizens, an individual need only be born or naturalized in the United States--nothing else is required. Any statute that required the completion of public service to be entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship would violate the Constitution.

Asking a Brit to teach American history is rather like asking an Indian for an objective biogarphy of G. A. Custer . . .

In all honesty, the history teacher in praising Jefferson was only peddling the accepted American historical canon--as with religious canons, historical canons bear little resemblance to the truth . . .

I was only teasing, but unfortunately many American History course are taught by unqualified teachers. Have to respect an Oxford education, but that doesn't necessarily make them experts on American History.

Paul Johnson, whose Birth of the Modern should be a must read, wrote a thick "scholarly" volume titled History of the American People. It was filled with factual errors. One example is that he apparently never quite understood that there were a number of Civil War Generals with the same name. He confused dates and results, while overlooking important trends that any undergraduate here would have twigged to in a heartbeat. I still respect Johnson's fundamental abilities, but I would never take anything he says at face value again.

The age for the military enlistment will never go up we can't afford it. Were already short on cannon fodder. Your not as nieve when your 18 as when your 21. We may loose them between that time.

There will be no draft. War is fought by the poor. The rich and fortunate don't have to fight.

Others will come and dispute this but others, liberal and conservative, know I am right. ALL my quotes are relevant. We are the empire and we will act as an empire. It is the history and nature of man. Are we to think we are the worlds first politically correct empire?????? This is our war within a war. The war against ourselves

P.S. I'll take those degrees off your hands.

Well he's an American, he just studied at Oxford. I just meant the brits that taught him are overrated. Ah well, I need to study my history more....

Amigo, I know plenty of middle class guys that served in Iraq. Your notion that only the poor serve is purely propaganda.

Reasonably valid points, Debra, though I feel argument might made against applicablity of the 5th ammendment, in that due process of law would enact such statute, and in that same due process of law would set the parameters of just compensation. The 13th Ammendment well could be considered inapplicable in the case of a declaration of national need and emegency, much as provides currently for conscription - just a matter of wriggling through the loopholes.

The 14th Ammendment might prove a tad thornier to satisfy, but even then, sophistry and political expedience have their ways - witness Volstead, Social Security, Roe/Wade , or Dred Scott, among any number of other squiggle-throughs, some which stood, some which didn't, but all of which became law. Besides, if all are subect to the law, without exemption or special consideration apart from medical necessity, as would be the case, then no denial of equal protection would pertain.

Flighty, facile evasions, yes, and offered merely for sake of argument. Futile Argument. The National Pysche being what and as it is, the notion of true, universally applicable, ultimately fair, morally and ethically responsible laws reconciling the privileges of citizenship with the obligations of citizenship is inconceivable. The Free Ride is the American Way, like it or not. There's really nothing to argue, the proposition, however interesting or attractive in any of its particulars, is mooted by American Realpolitik.

Debra,

The courts have never found the military draft unconstitutional, quite the opposite. In the proposals that Timber and I've made above, each individual has several alternatives they can make. All drafted into the National Service, or Military, would be paid. I believe this pretty much takes the wind out of the "involuntary servitude" arguments, thus the 13th Amendment would not apply.

I don't believe the 5th Amendment would be violated because no individual would be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Even after enlistment in one of the Services, an individual might choose to opt out of the system ... though there would be consequences to that choice.

A more serious argument is found, as you've pointed out, in the 14th Amendment.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Though you've drawn our attention to the first and final sentences of this clause, I believe that heart of the argument lies in the first clause of the second sentence, to wit:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Can the United States Federal Government adopt laws that proscribe voting rights and certain other benefits of U.S. Citizenship for failure to conform to a Federal Program lawfully passed and equally applied to all citizens?

Are all benefits of citizenship equally available to every individual? Obviously not. Taxation is not equal among all citizens, and social benefits provided by the government are not universally available even today. Those who are engaged in military, or government service, lose for a time some of their individual rights, and that is stare decisis. Convicts not only lose many privileges of citizenship, they are in many jurisdictions deprived of their rights to vote, or serve in any public office. In the proposal that prompted the query, even those individuals who knowingly opt not to participate can restore their right to vote by becoming productive citizens.

This proposal does not completely strip any individual of all citizenship rights, only the right to vote and actively participate in the political process. The individual would remain protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights from oppressive government encroachments upon their private lives. The non-participant in the Military/National Services would still be innocent until proven guilty of a crime by a jury of peers, though they would not qualify for any government assistance. The non-participant would remain free to travel without hinderance, and would still be able to exercise their right to emigrate to any foreign land they wished.

The non-participant would remain a defacto U.S. Citizen, but would only give up their privilege of voting, participating in the political process, and benefiting from the largess of the Federal government. Individual States might adopt State Laws that would provide some State benefits to those who choose not to pay the minimal price of full citizenship.

On the whole, I think that a good case can be made that the proposal would be Constitutional, though a large departure from previous practice. The Public good in this case would almost certainly outweigh the minor losses of a few, who freely and willingly decide to become second-class citizens.