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.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Uh no to the draft. I own my body, not the federal government.
^this^ I'm not for me,my kids or any other American's kids fighting a war for contractors paychecks or companies who invest overseas...let them hire Mercs to take care of their oilfields and ratty factories.
I think all 18 year olds (male and female) should do a mandatory 2 years service to their government....just 2 years...after that its entirely their own choice to continue or not
I don't have a problem with the draft if the need arises, though an all volunteer military is ideal. I do believe that women should also be included in the draft.
I oppose the draft.. too many poor kids were drafted in the Vietnam war and the college kids were exempt.. this is no way to run a draft...
If we absolutely needed man power I say yes to the draft in times of extreme need such as World War III.. and all hell breaks loose... I oppose women being drafted .. if men can't defend this country and need women to be drafted I think we are losing our morality when women have to handle a machine gun on the front line of battle.
I voted "I oppose it in all cases" since I'm skeptical that individual rights should be violated regardless of what is happening. If the government decides to violate the individual rights of some people because it feels like it has a really good reason to do this, what is to prevent this or another government from violating the individual rights of even more people in the future because it would feel like it would have a really good reason to do this? I fully support government efforts to strongly encourage people (by offering them and/or their families large incentives or whatever) to join the military if necessary, but I'm leaning towards saying that I oppose forcing people to join the military.
In regards to the draft, I also want to point out that perhaps I am being too naive and idealistic, but I don't think that a country should enter and/or fight wars for which there is not enough volunteers to fight. Just like I oppose installing leaders of a country which did not receive the support of a majority/plurality of the people, I oppose violating people's individual rights, even if the government feels that it has a really good reason to do this.
That said, I am flexible and open-minded about this issue, so I'm willing to hear what everyone else has to say.
Representatives that were voted into office decided that we should go to war in Iraq, that is not a violation of individual rights anymore than WW2, you might not like their decision but those are people we put into office. Any time we declare war on a country there should be a draft, not just contactors and volunteers.
I AM however in favor of letting "some" criminals work off their record for minor offenses though.
Many years ago this was common practice.
Ex (a) 17 year old kid gets caught riding around in a stolen car....
Join the service and stay out of future trouble......you now have a clean record....(ONLY IF) you make it successfully and leave under honorable conditions. That means no dishonorable discharges.
Same for other Class C/D felonies and all misdemeanors.
Wouldn't it be sweet for some gangbanger to get his ass kicked and get off drugs and off the street?
Trust me, a few days and he wouldn't have a choice.
By law, all male citizens, 17-45, are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die, on command.
That was the legal authority for "Selective Service" (draft) where only a portion are selected from the pool to actively serve.
As long as volunteers are sufficient, there is no need to "draft".
However, most are unaware that the Supreme court ruled that militia duty is NOT involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment.
Why?
Because asserting citizenship is a voluntary act.
There is no "draft" for non-citizen American nationals domiciled in the USA.
-REF-
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 are
(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.
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The poll is based on disinformation.
By law, all male citizens, 17-45, are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die, on command.
That was the legal authority for "Selective Service" (draft) where only a portion are selected from the pool to actively serve.
As long as volunteers are sufficient, there is no need to "draft".
However, most are unaware that the Supreme court ruled that militia duty is NOT involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment.
Why?
Because asserting citizenship is a voluntary act.
There is no "draft" for non-citizen American nationals domiciled in the USA.
-REF-
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 are
(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.
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
Iraq wasn't under US law,wasn't an insurection and it damn sure wasn't an invasion so Cheney should've had his draft dodging ass fighting it...he could've took Nugent,Limbaugh and all of those tough guys like himself that missed their chance to prove how tough they were the first time......whatever
Since I can see that you have a well developed sense of human rights issues I have to ask what you think about mandatory volunteer work as a requirement for high school graduation?
I oppose it in most cases - as there needs to be a real and legitimate pressing issue to trample on the individual rights for the common good.
WWII as a draft I would be fine with. Iraq - no, not that there was serious consideration for that.
In regards to World War II, if enough Americans (or whomever) would have been voluntarily willing to join the military and fight in it, then a draft would not have been necessary. In regards to World War II, had the U.S. avoided trying to provoke Japan and Germany, I am sceptical that they would have given us more trouble than we can handle with a volunteer military. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but Japan and Nazi Germany did not have the military capacity to bomb any areas in the contiguous 48 U.S. states, correct? I do agree with you that it would have been great if enough Americans voluntarily enlisted to go fight in World War II (with or without large government incentives for them to do this), but if this would not have occurred, then I don't think that we should have gotten involved in World War II, since after all, people's bodies are their own property and domain, not the government's. As a side note, I think that the German and Japanese regimes during World War II were pure scum (and I lost a lot of my relatives in the Holocaust), but I think that from the perspective of individual rights AND from a humanitarian perspective, it would have been better to avoid trying to provoke Nazi Germany and Japan and to try working out a deal with them about allowing many/most/all people that they want to kill to (gradually) immigrate to the U.S. instead (in exchange for having the U.S. stay out of World War II unless it was absolutely necessary for us to enter this war).
Also, again, the problem with the whole "It is okay to violate individual rights in order to prevent bad outcomes if I/we have a really good reason to do this" argument is that who is to say that your criteria for this (from the perspective of morality) is superior to someone else's criteria for this?
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.
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.
