I'm in favor of conscription.

Coming from a country where there's conscription. (Switzerland)

1. There's a smaller rift between civilian citizen and uniformed citizens because most get to get through the basic education and gets to see the reality of beeing inside the military. Less us(soldiers) vs. them lowly civilians.

For the same reason there's less jingoistic cultifying as be-all-end-all untouchable heroes of the military because "all" are the military. And no your defending no ones freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc etc.

When one suffers the danger of beeing deployed one is less in favor of aggressive policies a la we need to rescue this rescue that (aka sticking the nose in foreign affairs and messing around. On the other hand when beeing attacked or facing ecologic disasters the citizenry has at least basic training in coping with it. It's bound to be a defensive army. So are politics because there will be repercussions in unnessesarily endangering the citizens.

The Military is less likely to turn on its own citizens.




Of course that works well with a peaceful society. With fascists at the helm it would just be the american wehrmacht. But worth a consideration once sanity is restored in the upper echelons.

My grandfather once said: "It's a reassuring thought that the soldiers are mainly civilian citizens and not some sort of superior warrior caste.2 i agree with him. may he RIP.

my 2 cent's

puts flamesuit on.

I can definitely see your points and agree with all of the benefits of conscription.

However, I also feel an all-volunteer army carries the intrinsic benefit that we have the freedom to choose what we do with our own lives. It is a big deal for me as well.

a virtually unlimited supply of bodies. With all those bodies, he can go to war with every country he wants.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16781662

of political pressure until all his rich Republican buddies start getting concerned that it could be their kids coming home in body bags.

is that a lot of them are 'volunteering' because the can't find a better job. The voluteer military preys on the have-nots more than the have-mores. You rarely see a rich man volunteer for the military.

All part of why I'm torn on the issue.

is not to be trusted with a single one of our children.

because, unlike Switzerland, we don't have a long tradition of neutrality. On the contrary, we have a long tradition of wars of corporate convenience, mostly in our own hemisphere.

The volunteer army is now working exactly the way it's supposed to, with volunteering sharply decreased during the term of a would be Emperor who is hell bent on conquering the world by controlling its oil supply. A lack of manpower is curtailing his ambition to invade two adjacent countries to Iraq, Iran and Syria. That's the only thing stopping this criminal. Allowing him the power of conscription would allow him enough manpower to create even more mischief in the world.

No thanks. Conscription didn't result in a massive public outcry from anyone but those likely to be conscripted during the last corporate war of convenience, Vietnam. Nixon's "silent majority" were perfectly accepting of military conscription, and I suspect the same people would be today.

One thing we desperately need to do in this country is redefine the Pentagon's mission away from being hired muscle for multinational corporations and toward being a truly defensive force for the US. Conscription will delay that process indefinitely.

You must have lived through an entirely different 1968 than I did.

But this one is not, so I don't. In the current instance, a draft will only delay the inevitable.

If this war had public support, like it should, there would be no recruitment problems. That there is represents a failure of leadership, not a failure of the all-volunteer military.

Let's say everyone is required to invest 2 years of "Service to Country" and they can choose either a slot in either civilian service or military organizations.

We could have clean cities, low-income housing built, homeless shelters staffed, well-equipped and well-maintained parks, etc, etc.

Instead of out spending the ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED on military take just half of that and you can have everything you mentioned.

And who runs the media? And is there any dominant religion working to create a theocracy in Switzerland?

but not all. Andd they are not righties.

Prevalent religion are zwingli-refermed christianity and catholicsm but isn't really of concern. What you believe is ones own business one might share with close friends for a different angle on the fabric of beeing, but thats it. Strangers wanting to discuss religion are looked at awkwardly.

We have the CVP (Christian Peoples Party / Center left in our skala / very left on US skala)

The EVP Evangelical Peoples Party are our Theonutz-Gay bashers but as they should be so marginalized they couldn't stop us from accepting partner law (marital rights for gays).

Federal Councilor Christoph Blocher is our rightnut from the SVP swiss peoples party they are our regressive isolationists/hypocrites

we have our idiots too here..rest assured...

the virtues of conscription. Until then, you don't send good money after bad money. You just don't send innocent boys to fight a war which is based on evil intentions. Conscription today would give Bush the kind of sign of support that he shouldn't have if our intent is to withdraw early from Iraq.

Wars are approved by popular vote, not by Congress.

Eligible voters include only those who are eligible to serve. All votes are on the record, not private. The draftees come randomly from those who voted for the war.

In other words, you can only vote to support the war if you are actually willing to support it. If the majority believe it's critical enough to risk their life for, the country goes to war - with those people.

If the majority vote that no, they don't see the threat as large enough to go to war for, then no war.

Unconstitutional.

Might be worth a constitutional amendment.

my objection to conscription is tucked away near the bottom of your post ... you stated: "Of course that works well with a peaceful society. With fascists at the helm it would just be the american wehrmacht. But worth a consideration once sanity is restored in the upper echelons."

we have not had sanity in the US for more than a hundred years ... the US has been an imperialist aggressor since the Spanish-American war ...

to force an individual of conscience, who understands that the US military is nothing more than a tool of greedy imperialists, into conscriptive military service is simply unconscionable ...

Let's set aside the involuntary servitude issue that makes conscription a dead wrong idea to begin with - the idea that every single individual of age in the nation is ready to fight ANY war, save an unjust and illegal offensive attack, is patently idiotic. You draft people who aren't psychologically and/or physically ready for combat, you're going to get an unenthused, unfocused, pissed off, potentially drug-addicted and dangerous military.

Are pregnant women required to serve in the Swiss military?
Are single parents required to serve in the Swiss military?
Are people with physical disabilities required to serve in the Swiss military?
Are people with cognitive/emotional disabilities who are on medication required to serve in the Swiss military?
Are young people who are incarcerated required to serve in the Swiss military?
Are people who are taking hormones/etc. in preparation for a gender-change operation required to serve in the Swiss military?

Are pregnant women required to serve in the Swiss military?
*We only have conscription for men here. Women can serve on a voluntary basis(even pregnant.). We do have professionals as in voluntary full time military.

Are single parents required to serve in the Swiss military?
*AFAIK yes.

Are people with physical disabilities required to serve in the Swiss military?
*No

Are people with cognitive/emotional disabilities who are on medication required to serve in the Swiss military?
*No

Are young people who are incarcerated required to serve in the Swiss military?
*Depends. Lesser offenses doesn't prevent you from serving (or voting for that matter).

Are people who are taking hormones/etc. in preparation for a gender-change operation required to serve in the Swiss military?
*Don't know. Beeing in medical treatment does at least delay the serving date.

*Men not serving pay about 4% tax (which can be diminished by civilian duty)

Why should men have a "national obligation" to serve in the military, but women aren't held to that same standard?

but since gender equality is moving slowly here (at least its moving in the right direction, Voting rights for women 1971) Military service is a chore, women have allready plenty of chores taking the brunt of household work, children and unfair lesser pay. Our military is getting smaller too so there's not much support for enlargening it by conscripting the other half. Better concentrate on civilian fairness first.

...isn't it a little unfair to try to draw a parallel between American culture and Swiss culture?

What works in Switzerland won't necessarily work in America.

there should be no exemptions or deferments. If your number comes up, you're in the army, even if you're a senator's (or president's) son or daughter.

Senator's sons and daughters will serve if they want to. They'll be in harm's way if they choose to. That's not going to change no matter what the law says about it. Don't get caught in the trap that says a universal draft would be more democratic. It'll be bait and switch.

First of all can you point to a single instance in all of human history in which the kids of the elite were forced to serve when they did not want to? I doubt it. So why do you expect that to change now?

Second of all bush is commander in chief - and likely republicans will continue to take that role as long as they count the votes. Thus he can simply ORDER every kid of the elite to a DESK JOB state side.

Being in the military doesn't mean being on the front lines. There are PLENTY of state side military jobs the rich could get their kids in to.

the added benefit - is that every citizen knows how to defend themselves and their own, should the need ever arise.

militarize the entire population. Everyone knows how to put someone down should the "need" arise.

Who was it with that glorious vision? His name was Adolph something... can't remember.

BTW - what will the punishment be for those of us who don't want to be trained how to kill.. er "defend" ourselves? Jail, or will we simply be killed? Just wondering what the price will be for those of us who don't like your vision.

grants you the right to bear arms?



it's so that should the State ever turn on YOU, you have a way of defending yourself.


Now more than ever, those skills are necessary.

what will the price be for those of us who don't want to learn to kill?

BTW - the 2nd amendment specifically refers to state *well regulated militias*.

Considering one of the first things the new congresses did was make dissent of the government ILLEGAL through the Sedition Act I *seriously* doubt they wanted anyone to overthrow the government should it turn evil. In fact no government legalizes treason. (which is exactly what it is you refer to)

PERIOD. End of story.

Apples & oranges.

was that the british had an army during peace time.

If the king tried to draft the founders what do you think the response would have been?

Did they say the army would be 100% volunteer?

They left us some wiggle room on that one. Assuming that the population fairly elects leaders who start wars with our consent,then it is not "slavery" to assume that those same citizens should fight those wars.

The draft is constitutional, unless you can show me a Supreme Court Case that says otherwise.

"Assuming that the population fairly elects leaders who start wars with our consent,then it is not "slavery" to assume that those same citizens should fight those wars"

Odd isn't it that the very ones who always end up fighting the wars are the very opposite socially and economically of the ones at the top who wanted the war, isn't it? We fairly elect leaders do we? How likely is it that a poor person will be able to get the nomination of one of the two partys? How likely for a minority?

Which election between 2000 and now was "fair"?

"The draft is constitutional, unless you can show me a Supreme Court Case that says otherwise."

It's constitutional, but as history has shown the lower economic classes will only go through the meat grinder for so long before they rise up.

Including FDRs son, the Kennedys, etc.

The difference is with a draft there has to be REAL support for the war-not just talk.

With a draft, you only maintain a war if enough voters are physically willing to fight it...

The same folks who voted in the congressmen who delclared the war must fight the wars- it's perfecly fair.

Your argument is not with me, but with the bicameral, representative system. Yes it has flaws- its not perfect- we can agree on that.

conscription which is what you described. Having spent 15 years in the service, the universal conscription idea appeals to me somewhat for the reasons you described. And even though rich/influential children of privilege will still "get out of it" a lot more than the rest, it would wind up being more "fair" than the draft.

The thing is, a large country like the U.S. would probably be OVERserved by universal manhood (and/or womanhood) conscription, too big and unwieldy a military, I'd think...

Most of the shrub worshippers have no clue about anything about the military.

It's called "PlayStation".

You see all those first person shooters?

We have the finest militarily-trained teenagers in the world!

You hear that China??? SCREW YOU! WE'RE READY!

Evil Kumquat