tugmoose Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Yeah, I know a lot of draftees don't make highly effective, motivated soldiers. But I think the biggest effect of a draft is that it gives people incentive to join up before they're drafted. Make it a part of a national service program where everybody has to do something. If we are to take the President's word, we're gonna need a hell of a lot more troops in the "long struggle" ahead, unless we keep asking more and more of the current troops. Besides pulling out, any better ideas out there? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
blues7739 Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 How about not having any more ridiculous wars? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 So when we run out of kids who throw themselves on the fire voluntarily, we should force the ones who had the good sense not to volunteer into this mess?No, we should offer a choice of various national services. In previous drafts, if you were a C.O., you could work in a VA hospital instead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I said it before and I'll say it again: military service should be compulsory, like it is in a lot of other countries. Give your country two(?) years of your life, and your country sends you to college. Or something like that. It works elsewhere -- why not here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 until americans have to sacrifice, this war won't end. a draft might be an exit strategy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 If a draft is instituted, I will be the first in line to go to prison. I'm not killing or dying for this cause. No way, no how. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 If you changed compulsory military service to compulsory national service, I'd agree 100%. Compulsory military service works a lot better in countries where the leadership doesn't think they have a moral obligation to act as the world's police force. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 If you changed compulsory military service to compulsory national service, I'd agree 100%. Compulsory military service works a lot better in countries where the leadership doesn't think they have a moral obligation to act as the world's police force.Exactly. And I agree with Cryptique. The US just needs to get over individualism. There's a lot of benefits to having everyone serve their country. But they just shouldn't be forced to be in the military (even if it is only in a support position). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Basil II Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Exactly. And I agree with Cryptique. The US just needs to get over individualism. There's a lot of benefits to having everyone serve their country. But they just shouldn't be forced to be in the military (even if it is only in a support position). Common good and all that blah blah...........f*ck,when the time comes....we won't know what hit us...... -robert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I think there's something in the Constitution about this. Something about slavery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 the thirteenth amendment has two exception clauses. the first is for people who are convicted and imprisoned. the second is for conscription and military service. there's not a constitutional issue here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whitty Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Couldn't we just set up a foosball tournament to settle this unpleasantness in the Fertile Crescent once and for all? We need to watch out for al-Sadr, though. He spins, and is known to suddenly institute a "must win by two goals" rule when he falls behind late in a match. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 the thirteenth amendment has two exception clauses. the first is for people who are convicted and imprisoned. the second is for conscription and military service. there's not a constitutional issue here. But if it got changed to some sort of non-military "national service" as some were suggesting, there would be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 It's a shame that there's no mechanism to make changes to the constitution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 the actual text is: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. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.but the SCOTUS precedents allow for drafts and extending military service. if the court ruled national service to be "necessary and proper", having been passed by congress, the number of permanent government jobs will dramatically decrease. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 It's a shame that there's no mechanism to make changes to the constitution. Why change it when you can just ignore it? but the SCOTUS precedents allow for drafts and extending military service. if the court ruled national service to be "necessary and proper", having been passed by congress, the number of permanent government jobs will dramatically decrease. And the SCOTUS could get around any part of the Constitution with "necessary and proper." That doesn't mean it's actually in the Constitution. I don't see how 300 million government employees could be argued to be necessary, but I don't have a law degree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 that's the ultimate loophole in the constitution. i would estimate that a drastic cut in the number of employees would be possible if those in the government governed rather than constantly politicking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I don't see how 300 million government employees could be argued to be necessary, but I don't have a law degree.You seem to be implying that there are 300 million 18 to 20 year olds in America at any given time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 You seem to be calling me out on my hyperbolizing (Is that a real word?). i would estimate that a drastic cut in the number of employees would be possible if those in the government governed rather than constantly politicking. Can't they do less of both? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.