U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2011, 03:47 AM
 
400 posts, read 233,511 times
Reputation: 155

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
The only time there has been a problem with a draft is when we had a war that no one really believed in.
There was widespread opposition to the fairly limited draft during the Civil War, which was a conflict that plenty of people believed in. The low estimate for the dead/wounded for the New York draft riots of 1863 are 120 dead/2000 wounded.

I think that qualifies as 'a problem'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2011, 04:00 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,708 posts, read 9,807,295 times
Reputation: 9733
Default Americans are illiterate with respect to their own laws

Historically speaking, since DAY ONE, mandatory militia duty has been the LAW.

The obligation to serve in the military is derived from militia duty imposed on all male citizens (that otherwise qualify).
"Selective Service" is merely the means to choose a few from the available pool.

===============
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areó
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Articles of Confederation,VI (1777).
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If you are a male citizen, YOU ARE LIABLE.
You can be compelled to train, fight and die, on command.
Because you consented to be a citizen, a privilege granted by the servant government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 09:51 AM
 
14,253 posts, read 15,297,133 times
Reputation: 13681
A good friend of mine who was an officer in the British army told me they were unable to recruit sufficient men/women who had the educational level to be trained to operate some of the highly sophisticated equipment that most modern armies are so heavily dependent upon.

That might be an argument for some form of limited draft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Status: "On The Lookout" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,402 posts, read 61,862,013 times
Reputation: 31984
The next level of problem is (in the event they're needed) the inability of the military to push enough of the drafted recruits through the system of basic training and classification.

This ability needs to be broadened (a good use for many returning soldiers btw) by broadly expanding BCT capacity but then deeply shortening the drafted's commitment to perhaps another 6 months active and 24 months reserve. The questions should be focused on the next step beyond this expanded basic...

MOS and AIT and for that matter volunteering for a longer hitch with actual benefits
shouldn't even be discussed until after BCT is completed successfully.

The Military loses out on a lot of potentially good people who won't even enter the recruiters office.
If an MOS (beyond 11B) and advanced training were taken off the table until after these people had already completed the bogeyman of CBT and had a taste of things from the inside...
many of them will volunteer to stick around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 4,473,363 times
Reputation: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I say it would be a good thing. Here's why:

1. No one wants to owe up to it, but there is a quality problem among many recruits in the armed services. We have those who haven't completed schooling, those who have committed petty crimes, and other people who are less than committed to serving their country.

2. It would be good for young people to have to accept some sort of responsibility or committment in terms of defending and protecting the nation. We have emphasized freedom in our country for so long that a huge number of people have no concept that there are actually responsibilities that go along with this.

3. There are too many people in the military to earn rewards and benefits rather than to serve their country. The country shouldn''t have to bribe people with huge benefits to get them to do that which is their duty.

4. It would lead to less involvement in wars we shouldn't be fighting. If the sons of the rich and middle class were all forced to serve this country we would be having a real debate about whether its worth continuing the fight in Afghanistan and other places. The President wouldn't get a blank check from Congress to engage in such conflicts where there are at best marginal gains to be had for our country and society.

5. It would promote greater tolerance and cause more unity among our countrymen. The military is a vast melting pot. It would give the rich kid from the Hamptons in New York an opportunity to meet and understand poor kids who grew up in Watts in Southern California.

6. It is morally wrong that only the poor and less educated serve (and perhaps die) for their country in the military while the rich and middle class avoid service. This country belongs to ALL of us and All of us need to do our part.

Finally, just so young people can't claim they are being picked on, I propose some sort of limited draft for older healthy people who could render some valuable national service either in the military or out of up to age 65. Age shouldn't be away out of the draft either.

What say you?
1) re: a quality problem - you think there's a problem now? Fill the ranks with people who really don't want to be there, who didn't volunteer, and you will see a real quality problem.

2) There are better ways to teach responsibility by compeling our youth to civil service - ways that are less likely to get them killed.

3) You shouldn't have to pay people well to do their job? Do you think we should force everyone into the military and not pay them what we do and give them less benefits? There would be no leadership. What kind of lifers - career soldiers, etc. - would end up leading the military if the pay and benefits weren't what they are? Not everyone has the same sense of duty. Incentives are necessary.

4) That's a good point. I think you're right about that.

5) That's true, too. But teaching tolerance and encouraging cultural diversity is a lousy reason to force someone into military service.

6) I suppose it is morally wrong that those with the least opportunities fight for those with the most, but a better solution might be creating better opportunities to lower-income groups.

The military doesn't need so many people. It has technology. It costs a lot of money to have a large standing army - equipment, food, injuries, training, just keeping them busy and out of trouble, etc. Not to mention pay and benefits. Those people you suggest drafting might be doing better for the country via the economy by being available in the labor pool. Trust me, we do not want an economy that depends too heavily on military employment, and that's what we'd end up with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 10:02 PM
 
4,135 posts, read 9,400,747 times
Reputation: 2687
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Historically speaking, since DAY ONE, mandatory militia duty has been the LAW.

The obligation to serve in the military is derived from militia duty imposed on all male citizens (that otherwise qualify).
"Selective Service" is merely the means to choose a few from the available pool.

===============
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areó
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Articles of Confederation,VI (1777).
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If you are a male citizen, YOU ARE LIABLE.
You can be compelled to train, fight and die, on command.
Because you consented to be a citizen, a privilege granted by the servant government.
You have new items there listing females of the National Guard.

The Articles of Confederation, when taken over by the Constitutuion and Bill of Rights, is not so specific as the A of C are on states keeping a militia. Basically, I think lots of states would rather not keep on hand all to equip the militia... given the feeling of many to the Second Amendment.

As to historical perspective,

.Have you read old censuses? Up to about the 1840/50s ( when each person was started to be listed by name and age) the count also had a question "males over 16 and under 45" These were the men who were always the militia. They are the same men who always had to register for the draft , once it started -- I have draft records for my ggrandfather,m b. 1822 and he was on a Civil War "possible" due to age and trade. I have WWI draft records for my grandfather, and both of my husband's grandfathers. All were born in the 1870s or early 1880s. We have WWII enlistment -- but not draft -- for our Dads. My husband still has all his 1960s and 1970s draft cards -- but at that point, Congress stopped the Draft.

The argument is, therefore, should Congress reinstate it ( males must sign up anyway) or should it just become mandatory service from lets say 18-20 as it is in many countries. I think, given the way young guys look at service, you are better off getting enlistees as opposed to those who are drafted against their will (as was Vietnam era).

Add in that most males raised in (esp. liberal leftwing homes) in city or suburb of many states do not ever want to pick up a gun. Not too effective for a militia.

It'd be nice to have, but I sincerely don't think you could get the privileged spoiled brats into a militia. They'd find a way to stay out -- be it feigned illness, paying a lawyer, whatever. The people who woudl go would be the same who have no problem with it now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 10:24 PM
 
2,809 posts, read 4,226,755 times
Reputation: 2061
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I say it would be a good thing. Here's why:

1. No one wants to owe up to it, but there is a quality problem among many recruits in the armed services. We have those who haven't completed schooling, those who have committed petty crimes, and other people who are less than committed to serving their country.

2. It would be good for young people to have to accept some sort of responsibility or committment in terms of defending and protecting the nation. We have emphasized freedom in our country for so long that a huge number of people have no concept that there are actually responsibilities that go along with this.

3. There are too many people in the military to earn rewards and benefits rather than to serve their country. The country shouldn''t have to bribe people with huge benefits to get them to do that which is their duty.

4. It would lead to less involvement in wars we shouldn't be fighting. If the sons of the rich and middle class were all forced to serve this country we would be having a real debate about whether its worth continuing the fight in Afghanistan and other places. The President wouldn't get a blank check from Congress to engage in such conflicts where there are at best marginal gains to be had for our country and society.

5. It would promote greater tolerance and cause more unity among our countrymen. The military is a vast melting pot. It would give the rich kid from the Hamptons in New York an opportunity to meet and understand poor kids who grew up in Watts in Southern California.

6. It is morally wrong that only the poor and less educated serve (and perhaps die) for their country in the military while the rich and middle class avoid service. This country belongs to ALL of us and All of us need to do our part.

Finally, just so young people can't claim they are being picked on, I propose some sort of limited draft for older healthy people who could render some valuable national service either in the military or out of up to age 65. Age shouldn't be away out of the draft either.

What say you?
That's more like a HELL NO because of political corruption. If politicians were straight shooters, had their minds in the right place, and the US were really under attack, then, I would volunteer my damn self. Otherwise, I'm totally against a draft. 1. I'm not fighting for any other nation; and 2. I'm not fighting for anyone's personal agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 04:38 AM
 
1,570 posts, read 1,734,688 times
Reputation: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I say it would be a good thing. Here's why:

1. No one wants to owe up to it, but there is a quality problem among many recruits in the armed services. We have those who haven't completed schooling, those who have committed petty crimes, and other people who are less than committed to serving their country.
Funny you should say that, one of the problems with our conscripted military in Vietnam was the quality of the soldiers.

People who don't want to shoot at people or be shot at aren't going to be good soldiers, no matter how high their I.Q is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 03:16 PM
 
Location: 130 Miles E of Sacramento
5,393 posts, read 3,274,391 times
Reputation: 3573
If the U.S. was invaded, I'd pick up a gun and shoot those b@$t@rd$ that are trying to attack us. But if some moron in washington wants to invade another country for no reason, I wouldn't do it. Risking your life to attack another country isn't a good idea, and this would cause protesting and rioting
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,348 posts, read 4,146,915 times
Reputation: 5659
I once said the following to a group of Navy Veterans:

"Back, during the Vietnam War era, I did what a lot of people had to do to avoid military service....










.... I joined the Air Force!"

That elicited a lot of laughs, but only because there was a lot of truth in it. The Navy guys knew what I was talking about. When there was a draft, No one ever got drafted into the AF or the Navy. During the time I was in the AF I was an instructor in an Avionics training center. During this time the draft ended. It was not long before we started seeing a distinct difference in the quality of personnel coming through our center. And it wasn't an improvement we saw.

I later had a son that put in 20 years in the AF and retired a few years ago. He tells me that things had really changed while he was in. When he started, the recruits in the AF supported the AF mission. By the time he retired, many of the AF recruits had started getting pegged to drive trucks, do security details, and pretty much anything to support Army and Marine combat operations on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other bases the military is placed. I guess this would be to free up combat personnel, so they can spend more time in combat. On top of that they get rotated back to combat assigments more often than in the past.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be an instructor in an advanced technical discipline in the AF now. My son has told me that he would never recommend anyone to join the military now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top