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 03-11-2010, 07:17 AM
 
Location: New York (liberal cesspool)
918 posts, read 688,768 times
Reputation: 222

Advertisements

It's NOT a question. It's a constitutional responsibility imposed upon American males and codified to law and upheld by precedents in law.

A New Idea For Compulsory Military Service


1. I would institute a draft “registration”, wherein males ONLY would know that immediately upon graduation from high school they would have a mandatory 3 year military obligation to their Nation to fulfill. NO exceptions, NO exclusions. The statement would be made that when it comes to defending our country that role traditionally, in the main, has been a male responsibility. Don't Ask, Don't Tell would become an expunged protocol. Homosexuals will NOT be accepted nor tolerated in the armed forces. All males would be required to register with the Selective Service upon entering their junior year of high school . At this time they would be asked on the registration form if they wished to enlist upon graduation in order to get their choice of service. It would be explained that by enlisting they’d be doing so for four years. It would also be noted that females would only be eliminated from the “draft registration”, not from voluntarily enlisting.

Rationale: Immature kids and those with behavioral problems would not be dumped on society and into colleges for which they are ill-prepared in the main. As to women serving, there is NO need to encumber our daughters and mothers with such a mandatory responsibility, which is unsupported by the Constitution. In times of war THEY are needed at home. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it's a ‘who's responsible for and to what’ issue. Most importantly our male youth would, over the period of time that this is phased in, come to understand that there is an inherent patriotic responsibility that each generation has to assume if a Nation is to survive. What I’m talking about here is a ready “pool” of young men able to, but not necessarily needed at a particular time to serve. That defines why a draft registration process is needed. It’s up to Congress to finally establish levels of manpower needed for each branch of service. Those who were drafted and couldn’t make it through basic training would be discharged with “Unfit for Military Service” certificates that would be their adult start in civilian life, but before that, they'd be given option to serve in another capacity to be determined by codified public law. Domestic Peace Corps or similar come to mind as possible options. A 'domestic' army under the thumb of an Obama-like control freakazoid President and Execuive Branch would NOT meet that standard. NO domestic army would. After some few years of existence this registration process would become anticipated routine just like high school following junior high. As there would be NO exceptions and exclusions the rich man and poor man's sons would be accorded equal responsibility in such a system and share common ground, maybe the only time they ever will. That includes the politicians' sons. It would make commitment to any war venture not at all a "given" and those whom we elect might be all the more circumspect about how they advise and consent to authorize war when THEIR sons are also being sent off!



2. All males would be required to register with the Selective Service upon entering their junior year of high school . In their senior high school year all would sit for an indoctrination to explain the system and the ramifications of the system on them.

Rationale: The point to be made here is that the total needs of the annual armed forces requirements would be highest in the first few years of the system and likely lessen as some of those who entered decided to stay and make the military a career. In any event...it, the "annual draft", would only be a small percentage of those ‘registered’, possibly even satisfied by the number who elect to volunteer for the branch of their choice. The number of registered who were not needed to meet the DOD requirements for all branches of service would become the eligible pool in the event of declared war and increased personnel needs. It is THAT POOL that we have NO provisions for now and are in dire need of. It may even make sense to require those in 'the pool' to serve their reserve obligation ' up front' and be available for a two to three week period annually while in that "pool" and inactive as to activation needs of the services.



3. Prior to graduation those who wished to elect their choice of service branch would so indicate and also provide a secondary choice. Each year the DOD (Dept of Defense) would determine how many new recruits for each branch of service would be required and those would be selected by a computer generated process that would select from a master alphabetized, by surname, list. If, for example, 10% of the available pool were needed the computer would select every tenth name.

Rationale: Such a system satisfies the armed forces needs and is as fair and equitable as reasonably possible.



4. Those who could not meet the health standard minimum requirements would be offered the option to serve in a local chapter of what might be called the Domestic Civic Corps (DCC), doing bookkeeping/paperwork functions. The DCC would be a program setup and administered by the federal government in league with each state and would provide assistance for disabled vets; indigenous poor and sickly; elderly homebound requiring assistance and similar; mentally handicapped; homeless, etcetera.. Those who were proven to be too sickly for that would be excluded. Stringent standards would be enforced with latitude granted in only single, case-by-case individual reviews by a review board formed for just that purpose. Board rulings would have to be unanimous and have only a single instance appeal right.

Rationale: The advantages are obvious as the society needs are satisfied and these young people have a hands-on, one-on-one lesson in reality to help inculcate them with a 'sense of responsibility' at a time in their lives where the present experience is diametrically opposite.

Conclusion:
The responsibility of citizenship will have been finally met by an equitable adoption of a draft registration process once and for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2010, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,870,061 times
Reputation: 35910
Since when is warfare construed to be mandatory in any civilized human condition?

Since when is it "good" to psychologically condition, against his will, an otherwise peaceable person to kill another human being, without hesitation or moral reflection, on command.

Last edited by jtur88; 03-11-2010 at 07:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:04 AM
 
Location: New York (liberal cesspool)
918 posts, read 688,768 times
Reputation: 222
Default jtur88

Quote:
Since when is warfare to be construed to be mandatory in any civilized human condition?
NOT to attempt to put words in my mouth you know I didn't say here in print. What is "mandatory" is the responsibility of male Americans to serve their country when called upon. THAT is what's being debated here.

Quote:
Since when is it "good" to psychologically condition a person to kill another human being, without hesitation or moral reflection, on command.
IRRELEVANT. Your attempt at obfuscation and hijacking the issue again. I ain't taking the bait. You want to debate THIS question post a topic on it, but be CERTAIN to include the sphere of military service as a reference. I'll be more than willing and able to accomodate you there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,870,061 times
Reputation: 35910
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo View Post
NOT to attempt to put words in my mouth you know I didn't say here in print. What is "mandatory" is the responsibility of male Americans to serve their country when called upon. THAT is what's being debated here.

.
That's funny. When you titled your post "A New Idea For Compulsory Military Service", it wasn't me who put that word "military" in there.

I also think it is hilarious that your conclusion calls your plan "equitable", but applies to males only, even though the military aspect of it is only in my own imagination, words that I've put into your mouth.

Last edited by jtur88; 03-11-2010 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,119 posts, read 20,232,472 times
Reputation: 8209
This is about the eleventy third thread on the subject and all you will hear is the same old whining about how they are too busy or too important to lift a finger for their country. I've been hearing it since before Vietnam. No matter what system you put in place the rich will bribe the lawmakers and only the poor will actually serve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 09:03 AM
 
Location: :~)
1,483 posts, read 2,835,100 times
Reputation: 1519
Default No way

I will only hit on a few points that I am familiar.

There have been many discussions on this topic. I don't think it will help at all. Today, when people volunteer, their heart is into it. If we use that program as incentivizer (sp), I think we will lose that heart felt assistance.

I am retired military. The current voluntary system works perfectly. If the government enacts such a program the military judical system will be overloaded with court martials, no doubt. The last thing we need are individuals biding their time, they are just as bad. They hurt morale. Plus, I have much experience dealing with discipline issues and those individuals volunteereed. They wasted alot of my time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 09:47 AM
 
Location: New York (liberal cesspool)
918 posts, read 688,768 times
Reputation: 222
Default jtur88

Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
NOT to attempt to put words in my mouth you know I didn't say here in print. What is "mandatory" is the responsibility of male Americans to serve their country when called upon. THAT is what's being debated here.

.

That's funny. When you titled your post "A New Idea For Compulsory Military Service", it wasn't me who put that word "military" in there.

I also think it is hilarious that your conclusion calls your plan "equitable", but applies to males only, even though the military aspect of it is only in my own imagination, words that I've put into your mouth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You betcha it wasn't. I DID THAT and with great intention.

What is NOT hilarious and is rather SHAMEFUL is your gross ignorance of our Constitution and law. Try paying close attention please, so we don't have to rehash this. I have little patience for being overly repetitious. Shpud you diagree. Please to NOW disagree with legal fact, NOT mere opinion.

Our Constitution and law by ruling and precedent defines "males" as those who are eligible for compulsory military service. That neigbor makes it "equitable". Get it? It is neighbor...a CONSTITUIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you require some ACTUAL REFERENCE enlightenment I can repeat what I've previously noted elsewhere.

In the preamble to our Constitution that "responsibility" is acknowedged herewith:
"...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish..."

To "provide for the common defence" in Article I, Section 8. it gives Congress the power..."to raise and support armies..." and "to provide and maintain a Navy"

All those italicized portions are "responsibilities" we acknowledge by bearing allegiance to the Constitution. If you are indeed a citizen, of this country, you should know that.

The law has held on many occasions that the state has the right to call up males for service in defense of the nation at it's discretion.

"Compelled military service is neither repugnant to a free government nor in conflict with the constitutional guaranties of individual liberty. Indeed, it may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the duty of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right of the government to compel it."

"The power of Congress to compel military service as in the Selective Draft Law, clearly sustained by the original Constitution, is even more manifest under the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as frequently has been pointed out, broadened the national scope of the government by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant, instead of being subordinate and derivative, thus operating generally upon the powers conferred by the Constitution"

"The constitutionality of the Selective Draft Law also is upheld against the following objections: (1) That, by some of its administrative features, it delegates federal power to state officials; (2) that it vests both legislative and judicial power in administrative officers; (3) that, by exempting ministers of religion and theological students under certain conditions and by relieving from strictly military service members of certain religious sects whose tenets deny the moral right to engage in war, it is repugnant to the First Amendment, as establishing or interfering with religion, and (4) that it creates involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Affirmed."
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/index.html

You'll take 'special note of' objection numbr (4), which this ruling was upheld AGAINST.



If you are a citizen, that "responsibility" to your nation is considered voluntary servitude. For those who misunderstand our Constitution and laws, such as yourself, they think it involuntary servitude. That is wrong as the decision comments above clearly enunciate. They (and you) think that way for selfish reasons. You fail to properly understand that citizenship in this great nation carries with it 'inherent' responsibilities. What kind of folly of a nation would it be if that nation failed to demand responsibilities of it's citizens. Only in the exercising of said responsibilites can RIGHTS be guaranteed. One of the oaths you would affirm to if you were beoming a naturalized citizen states as follows:

"that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law."

What's right for a naturalized citizen is most assuredly correct for a born citizen!

The "when required by law" portion refers to conscription into military service..the draft.

It is an obligation, you as a male citizen, bear a "responsibility" to your nation for.

What part of the word RESPONSIBILITY are you having a difficult tme coming to grips with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 10:36 AM
 
Location: New York (liberal cesspool)
918 posts, read 688,768 times
Reputation: 222
Default jbub22

[quote=jbub22;13248673]I will only hit on a few points that I am familiar.

Quote:
There have been many discussions on this topic. I don't think it will help at all. Today, when people volunteer, their heart is into it. If we use that program as incentivizer (sp), I think we will lose that heart felt assistance.
Peoples', or in this case, citizen's hearts is not the issue. Constitutional responsibility to be fulfilled is the issue as detailed thoroughly in my response #147

Quote:
I am retired military. The current voluntary system works perfectly. If the government enacts such a program the military judical system will be overloaded with court martials, no doubt. The last thing we need are individuals biding their time, they are just as bad. They hurt morale. Plus, I have much experience dealing with discipline issues and those individuals volunteereed. They wasted alot of my time.
Given that opinion that the "system works perfectly" you are obviously not retired Army nor Marine Corps. The system, meaning ALL the politicians, has failed us and done so with miserable regularity. The wars we fight now are as all our wars, still fought...in the main, by the troops with their boots on the ground.
WE do NOT have sufficient troops to back our assorted treaty commitments and obligations.
WE do NOT have a sufficient 'ready-force' under arms to respond should another war be declared.
WE do NOT presently have minimal quota standards of personnel needed for each branch of the armed forces.
WE have a Navy that is being systematically decimated, by each new congress, and turned in to a 'littoral warfare' force only.
WE have a Navy wherein males and females of officer and enlisted ranks co-mingle and serve together with the addtl problems that brings. Try and get a database listing from the Navy Dept on unwed pregnancies and abortions. You'll never find it, even though it occurs at sea and with increasing regularity the Navy burys the matter.
WE have an overstressed fighting force being endlessly rotated in and out of battle conditions as the FEW shoulder the "RESPONSIBILITY" of THE MANY. That is what's WRONG without having a continuing draft pool ready at all times.
WE are using our home guard (National Guard elements) to fight our wars now,
WE are using our reservists to fight our wars now.
WE are overstressing our career professional military and they are retiring in droves, many earlier than they'd planned in DISGUST.
WE have allowed a civilian philosophy of social behavior that is tolerated on the 'outside' to permeate and corrupt our military on the 'inside' and be endorsed at the highest levels of government.
I have friends of mine who were in and served with me and made a career and left prematurely as they couldn't stand what was ongoing anymore.

As to this> "If the government enacts such a program the military judical system will be overloaded with court martials, no doubt." I'd respectfully suggest that such is impossible. I'm talking about the law of the land for the "responsibility" of civilians in service requirement to their country. I went to lengths to also detail other options aside from direct military service under force of arms in a topic post located here:
mandatory service should it be required.
In case you're interested.

Last edited by doctorhugo; 03-11-2010 at 10:52 AM.. Reason: spelling correction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 11:07 AM
 
Location: :~)
1,483 posts, read 2,835,100 times
Reputation: 1519
I won't take offense to your comments, which do slight me a bit, because we are fighting for the same team. I do find it interesting that you, former military, agree to a mandatory enlistment. Very interesting? I haven't heard that in a LONG time.

In the end, I do agree with the majority of your comments. The few shoulder the responsibility (military as a whole, yes!), military stretched, reservist/NG used for wars and overall military frustration. But, I would like to state, the other statements seem to be rumor mill based material.

The one statement that is incorrect is about judicial system. The days of allowing everyone to enter is over. Though, I agree we need to increase the force but allowing everyone to enter will overwhelm the current system. Believe it or not, some, if not alot, of people want no part of the military. If we force those individuals to join they will cause several problems to include overwhelming our judicial system. Yes, the government should loosen the standards to allow more personnel to join but not a free for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,870,061 times
Reputation: 35910
There is a difference between "eligible for compulsory conscription" and "required to be conscripted". If you don't understand that simple distinction, there is no point going on to misinterpret the rest of the constitution.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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