NationStates Jolt Archive

I have decided that the best thing for the US would be to have a 2-year mandatory service requirement for all citizens to be served between the ages of 18 and 26. (Conciencious objectors could serve in either the peace corps or something like that....)
The advantages? Well, first of all, we would never have invaded Iraq if this were the case. Think about it: if your mother knew you could get shot at, would she be less or more likely to vote for a war? If we did have a need for military action, we would have tremendous troop strength. It would help to build nationalism - not hatred of the world, but pride in the US. And, finally, it would instill a sense of civic virtue in our youth.
Whaddaya think?

I have decided that the best thing for the US would be to have a 2-year mandatory service requirement for all citizens to be served between the ages of 18 and 26. (Conciencious objectors could serve in either the peace corps or something like that....)
The advantages? Well, first of all, we would never have invaded Iraq if this were the case. Think about it: if your mother knew you could get shot at, would she be less or more likely to vote for a war? If we did have a need for military action, we would have tremendous troop strength. It would help to build nationalism - not hatred of the world, but pride in the US. And, finally, it would instill a sense of civic virtue in our youth.
Whaddaya think?
What about individualism and choice? Also, why is pride in one's country so important?

I couldn't think of a worse idea. The BNP (British Nationalist Party - the racist ones) here in Britain want a similar thing. It's another of the reasons why people don't vote for them.

No - as far as I'm concerned, a draft forces people into service against their will, making them unwilling to serve and thus making the military weaker by their lack of determination.

The problem I see is that a large group of the draftees would be very, very resentful and carry that moral degrading feeling into their service. They would be a hinderance to those who would try to well. The draft degrades the effectiveness of whatever organization uses it.

it would instill a sense of civic virtue in our youth.

More like instill a sense of obeying authority figures without question. I'm not american, but I wouldn't want to be drafted into being cannon-fodder because some politician I didn't vote for wanted to invade somewhere.

Mandatory service is one of the worst forms of coercion I know of. It would do away with independent ideas in favor a singular ideal.

What about individualism and choice? Also, why is pride in one's country so important?
Just because you are in the military doesn't mean that you aren't an individual, anymore than being a student at a pulic high school removes your individuality....
As for choice, it is a big deal to force people to serve a term. But we already force people to do all sorts of things in this country: pay taxes, go to school, etc. We do these things because it is good for the country - and in some things the greater good wins out.
It is vital to have pride in our country. Through national pride, we continue to work for the best in our country, we become active citizens, we look on our countrymen as brothers. Without pride you have disenfranchisement, more and more corruption and, finally, a collapse of the state.

Well, first of all, we would never have invaded Iraq if this were the case. Think about it: if your mother knew you could get shot at, would she be less or more likely to vote for a war?
That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

I never want to go to war for my country, yes I live in the United States, and that is my choice to make. I don't want some crazed political tyrant forcing me into war. I can tell you right now that if I was drafted to fight in a war I would do the worst job possible and bring down the moral of all who stood before me just to get dismissed. Wait, no...I'll just tell them I'm gay. It's very easy to get out of a mandatory draft, so instilling one is complete crap. If people want to go off to war and get blown to hell for our country, let them. Just don't make me be one of them.

That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.
Wonderful counter argument! I may have made my argument a little folksy, but I can't see how it WOULDN'T be the truth. People in general are far more passionate about issues that affect them directly than issues that are more abstract. Tell someone in the US that we may go to war against a country that may have WMDs, and you might get indifference, or a weak assent or dissent. Tell someone that their loved ones may be killed in a war because someone else may have WMDs, and they'd be asking a lot of questions about how necessary such a war would be...
I am in the military, and I hear far more frank and honest debate about the invasion of Iraq there than anywhere else - because it concerns us more.

and in some things the greater good wins out.

the Greater Good?!

Ever heard the quote
"Better doesn't always mean better for everyone, it always means worse for some."

It's from the dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.

Anyone who talks about the greater good of the people is dangerous. You know that Hitler thought that his Final Solution was in the best interests of the German people? And that Chairman Mao acted for the greater good of his people - yet in one year 20 million people in China starved to death due to lack of food provision by Mao.

Yes - the greater good...

Paying taxes towards the roads and schools is a LOT different to serving in a military against your will.

I have decided that the best thing for the US would be to have a 2-year mandatory service requirement for all citizens to be served between the ages of 18 and 26. (Conciencious objectors could serve in either the peace corps or something like that....)

I agree totally Jalula.

The advantages? Well, first of all, we would never have invaded Iraq if this were the case. Think about it: if your mother knew you could get shot at, would she be less or more likely to vote for a war? If we did have a need for military action, we would have tremendous troop strength. It would help to build nationalism - not hatred of the world, but pride in the US. And, finally, it would instill a sense of civic virtue in our youth.
Whaddaya think?

I disagree with your 1st comment. I don't think it would've stopped us going into Iraq. Nice thought though but I think it would've happened anyway. Everything else though I also agree with.

I never want to go to war for my country, yes I live in the United States, and that is my choice to make. I don't want some crazed political tyrant forcing me into war. I can tell you right now that if I was drafted to fight in a war I would do the worst job possible and bring down the moral of all who stood before me just to get dismissed. Wait, no...I'll just tell them I'm gay. It's very easy to get out of a mandatory draft, so instilling one is complete crap. If people want to go off to war and get blown to hell for our country, let them. Just don't make me be one of them.
Certainly, as I put in my post, those with serious conscientious objections could serve in the peace corps, or something similar. No one would be forced to fight against his will.

Paying taxes towards the roads and schools is a LOT different to serving in a military against your will.
Is it? Figure you pay a total of 20% tax (including income, sales, property, etc - probably WAY low) and you work from 25 to 65; a total of 40 years. The government has effectively already forced you into 5 years of service; unpaid, mandatory service.

and I hear far more frank and honest debate about the invasion of Iraq there than anywhere else - because it concerns us more.

frank and honest debate about Iraq? Good lord...

Yes - Saddam has WMDs that he can deploy in 40 minutes! Run for the hills!
Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11
Troops in Iraq have not been mistreating Iraqi prisoners/citizens...

I rarely ever hear the words 'honest debate' in conjunction with Iraq.

People are concerned about Iraq because the two leaders who went there - Bush and Blair hand in hand - lied about the whole thing.

I have decided that the best thing for the US would be to have a 2-year mandatory service requirement for all citizens to be served between the ages of 18 and 26. (Conciencious objectors could serve in either the peace corps or something like that....)
The advantages? Well, first of all, we would never have invaded Iraq if this were the case. Think about it: if your mother knew you could get shot at, would she be less or more likely to vote for a war? If we did have a need for military action, we would have tremendous troop strength. It would help to build nationalism - not hatred of the world, but pride in the US. And, finally, it would instill a sense of civic virtue in our youth.
Whaddaya think?

The problems with your proposal are manifold,but the obvious one, is degrading the quality of the Military for peacetime purposes that may not result in the outcome you desire.

Currently, we have the highest-quality military on earth, with the best per-capita training, technology, and morale of any armed force currently serving.

This would all fall apart under a Conscription structure without a direct and obvious threat to the U.S.

It would also cost the bloody earth to pay for.

Certainly, as I put in my post, those with serious conscientious objections could serve in the peace corps, or something similar. No one would be forced to fight against his will.

Why should I even need to join the peace corps against my will. Call me crazy, but at the age of 22 I'm trying to get on my own feet and pay off college debts. I have enough of my own problems to worry about. Let me focus all of my attention on my job right now. Later on, if I FEEL like it, maybe I'll join the peace corps. As of now, I have my own problems.

Is it? Figure you pay a total of 20% tax (including income, sales, property, etc - probably WAY low) and you work from 25 to 65; a total of 40 years. The government has effectively already forced you into 5 years of service; unpaid, mandatory service.

But out of paying my taxes - I get relatively decent infrastructure, a police force, a Government that I elect, refuse collection, etc

By being forcibly conscripted into an army? I get nothing back.

frank and honest debate about Iraq? Good lord...

Yes - Saddam has WMDs that he can deploy in 40 minutes! Run for the hills!
Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11
Troops in Iraq have not been mistreating Iraqi prisoners/citizens...

I rarely ever hear the words 'honest debate' in conjunction with Iraq.

People are concerned about Iraq because the two leaders who went there - Bush and Blair hand in hand - lied about the whole thing.
Yeah, I actually agree with your last, and have since before I knew I had to come over here. There are lots of folks here who think it was a mistake to come, but we can do good here despite bad reasons to start, folks who think that it was a great idea from the start, folks who think that we should leave tomorrow, etc. Everyone here has an opinion, because it affects us all so directly.
Contrast us to the population at large, and I think you'd find a much higher level of political awareness...

I give a warning to he who seeks nationalism. It is a big deal, you take away ones choice and what do you get in return? An oversized military machine at hands and will of the government.

Why should I even need to join the peace corps against my will. Call me crazy, but at the age of 22 I'm trying to get on my own feet and pay off college debts. I have enough of my own problems to worry about. Let me focus all of my attention on my job right now. Later on, if I FEEL like it, maybe I'll join the peace corps. As of now, I have my own problems.
Like I said, mandatory service may help to build civic responsibility. Maybe after you had served a few years you would put the good of others above your own sometimes.

Like I said, mandatory service may help to build civic responsibility. Maybe after you had served a few years you would put the good of others above your own sometimes.

Jalula, you can serve the good of others in alternative ways instead of military service.

Conscription is bad for moral. Period.

But out of paying my taxes - I get relatively decent infrastructure, a police force, a Government that I elect, refuse collection, etc

By being forcibly conscripted into an army? I get nothing back.
Well, you'd get paid. More importantly, you would be contributing to your own national security; and if the rest of my hypothesis is true, you would majorly contribute to a new climate of cooperation, civility, and nationalism in our country...

Like I said, mandatory service may help to build civic responsibility. Maybe after you had served a few years you would put the good of others above your own sometimes.
You throw "good" around in almost every reply. So it's the society above all else.
Also, how would you pay for this oversized military? Raise taxes or take from other programs, either option would not be a wise decision.

But doesn't the removal of the Draft after its relative failure in Vietnam refute most of your points? History suggests that the progression to a small, volunteer professional forces is the norm.

Jalula, you can serve the good of others in alternative ways instead of military service.

Absolutely, but folks don't. They don't volunteer, they don't give to charity, they don't vote, they don't care. I think mandatory service would help to fix all of that.
And I'm sure I will get a million "I give, and I'm not in the military" posts, but I'm talking about in general, not specific individuals.

Like I said, mandatory service may help to build civic responsibility. Maybe after you had served a few years you would put the good of others above your own sometimes.

Or maybe...my immediate responsibilities should come into play. Maybe I should stay home when I'm not at work, and care for my 3 month old daughter. I think that may be a large responsibility for me right now. It sounds to me like I am putting the good of others above my own.

Well, you'd get paid. More importantly, you would be contributing to your own national security; and if the rest of my hypothesis is true, you would majorly contribute to a new climate of cooperation, civility, and nationalism in our country...

But I have faith in my National Security as it is, thank you very much. That's what the people who work for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence are paid for.

And I strongly disagree with your last statement! Cooperation and civility?! I wouldn't be cooperating with anything - I'd be being forced into something I didn't want to do.

Thanks - but no thanks.

Absolutely, but folks don't. They don't volunteer, they don't give to charity, they don't vote, they don't care. I think mandatory service would help to fix all of that.
And I'm sure I will get a million "I give, and I'm not in the military" posts, but I'm talking about in general, not specific individuals.

I think that you are understating severly the nature of people in this country. Maybe in the States people don't give a toss about other people, but here in the UK we're a pretty friendly bunch of people, who look out for each other when we can.

You throw "good" around in almost every reply. So it's the society above all else.
Also, how would you pay for this oversized military? Raise taxes or take from other programs, either option would not be a wise decision.
Well, first, there are a whole lotta programs that we could cut without me shedding a tear. But I doubt we'd even have to do that - there is so much inefficiency and redundancy in the military as is, if we combine the increased personnel with a major reorganization of the military (the kind Rumsfeld was trying to talk about, pre 9-11) we might be able to keep costs about where they are now...

All I can say is - thank god I don't live in the US.
At least the senior members of British Government, whilst flawed in other ways, do not go around flaunting conscription in our faces.

If they did that - it'd probably be the last thing they ever did - they'd get kicked out of Number 10 before you can say 'Private'

I think that you are understating severly the nature of people in this country. Maybe in the States people don't give a toss about other people, but here in the UK we're a pretty friendly bunch of people, who look out for each other when we can.
I don't know about the UK. Here, folks are generally good, but we are getting more and more individualistic. People should be proud and expressive as individuals, but should also be proud and caring about their societies.

Well, first, there are a whole lotta programs that we could cut without me shedding a tear. But I doubt we'd even have to do that - there is so much inefficiency and redundancy in the military as is, if we combine the increased personnel with a major reorganization of the military (the kind Rumsfeld was trying to talk about, pre 9-11) we might be able to keep costs about where they are now...
Even if you did that you would still have to raise taxes which would make the people support something they may not believe in. Te budget is already 426 billion or so.
Could you also name some programs?

All I can say is - thank god I don't live in the US.
At least the senior members of British Government, whilst flawed in other ways, do not go around flaunting conscription in our faces.

If they did that - it'd probably be the last thing they ever did - they'd get kicked out of Number 10 before you can say 'Private'

The only people I've heard talking about the damn draft were Democrats. They have sinced stopped talking about it.

All I can say is - thank god I don't live in the US.
At least the senior members of British Government, whilst flawed in other ways, do not go around flaunting conscription in our faces.

If they did that - it'd probably be the last thing they ever did - they'd get kicked out of Number 10 before you can say 'Private'
There are plenty of industrialized nations where military serviice already is mandatory. I think it's one of those things that seems hard to bear until instituted, and then, once it has positive effects on the country, becomes cherished.

I don't know about the UK. Here, folks are generally good, but we are getting more and more individualistic. People should be proud and expressive as individuals, but should also be proud and caring about their societies.
A society is comprised of individuals, without then there is no society. My problem is that it takes away choice.

But doesn't the removal of the Draft after its relative failure in Vietnam refute most of your points? History suggests that the progression to a small, volunteer professional forces is the norm.

The draft has been complete sucess in WWII. Without is we wouldn't have the manpower to fight the Japanese and Nazi Germany. You cn't use one conflect as the representative for all of history. Many European countries, Switzerland and Turkey for example, require military service and the people have adjusted to a point where is just one step in becoming a member of society.

Could you also name some programs?
Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org/) list nearly $30 billion of waste and pork last year. That'd be a good place to start cutting...

Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org/) list nearly $30 billion of waste and pork last year. That'd be a good place to start cutting...
I would give that money back to the people who earned it, but that is a far cry from what it would cost. We would quite possibly return to Cold War spending levels.

A society is comprised of individuals, without then there is no society. My problem is that it takes away choice.
It does, but as I've said before, no more than forcing kids to go to school or forcing people to pay taxes...and we aren't talking about slave labor or prison, either. Lots of folks who didn't like the idea would probably end up retiring as Generals...

This increased military spending would also DIRECTLY boost the economy - all that money would be, by definition, paid domestically, spent domestically, and multiplied by repeat spending and taxation to charge the economy...

We'd see a difference in American foreign policy if the Bush twins were in uniform. I'm for national service (18 year old, male American, so I'd be willing to do it.) One of the reasons our country is so militaristic is that most of our soldiers don't come from the same background as our leaders, so it's easier to put them in harm's way for someone like George W. who doesn't know anyone like that and never will.

This increased military spending would also DIRECTLY boost the economy - all that money would be, by definition, paid domestically, spent domestically, and multiplied by repeat spending and taxation to charge the economy...
FYI, I am against compulsary school attendence and taxes. (though some form is required for some programs.) It would increase the size of government and redistribute wealth. It's a state-assisted form of consumerism.

The draft has been complete sucess in WWII. Without is we wouldn't have the manpower to fight the Japanese and Nazi Germany. You cn't use one conflect as the representative for all of history. Many European countries, Switzerland and Turkey for example, require military service and the people have adjusted to a point where is just one step in becoming a member of society.

But the Draft for WWII was necessary, you needed the manpower and also, crucially, you were fighting a war that you believed in, and knew had to be fought, (there was a clear message). Vietnam, as you well know, you weren't facing conventional forces, you needed professional, well-trained troopers. The draft for Vietnam, for the most part, provided you with inadequate, unmotivated and socially disenfranchised personnel. This was exacerbated by the increasing disillusionment with the war, (there was a muddled message). If you look at at France removing National Service, the primary reason was the inadequate troops it provided for the First Gulf War. Germany, Switzerland , (unsure of Turkey), are reviewing National Service idea. Most of Europe relies on professional volunteer forces.

I only use Vietnam because the idea of needing mass conscript army's was shown to be flawed. Iraq may suggest that you need more troops, but that's way America has focused on technology to such an extent. "Why use a trooper when got a computer" idea. You don't want poor troops in Iraq that the reintroduction of the Draft would probably provide you. You need professional, motivated, intelligent troops, (i.e. volunteers)

We'd see a difference in American foreign policy if the Bush twins were in uniform. I'm for national service (18 year old, male American, so I'd be willing to do it.) One of the reasons our country is so militaristic is that most of our soldiers don't come from the same background as our leaders, so it's easier to put them in harm's way for someone like George W. who doesn't know anyone like that and never will.
Amen to that. I actually got the idea reading something similar in a newspaper article a couple of years ago - assuming the system was administered fairly, We'd have a host of congressmen and such with kids in harms way...unnecessary wars wouldn't happen.

FYI, I am against compulsary school attendence and taxes. (though some form is required for some programs.) It would increase the size of government and redistribute wealth. It's a state-assisted form of consumerism.
Hard to argue with you then :)
And even if I disagree with you, at least you are being consistent...

and yet some congressmen do have kids in the service and in harms way and they still voted to for sending them there.

Go figure.

The only people I've heard talking about the damn draft were Democrats. They have sinced stopped talking about it.

Yeah, they used it because it's such an unpopular idea. Dem leaders tried to use it as a weapon against the war in Iraq. Any politician talking about instituiting a draft would get booted out. It is political suicide. Jalula is definitely in the minority. I disagree with the draft on the grounds Jalula supports it. It changes who you are as a person. Jalula emphasizes the positives, but there are many negatives to the military mode of thinking.

For example, my cousin joined the military to pay for college. Through the course of training, he changed from a gentle kid from rural Florida to a man willing to kill for an Idea (caps for a reason). That scares me, deeply.

I only use Vietnam because the idea of needing mass conscript army's was shown to be flawed. Iraq may suggest that you need more troops, but that's way America has focused on technology to such an extent. "Why use a trooper when got a computer" idea. You don't want poor troops in Iraq that the reintroduction of the Draft would probably provide you. You need professional, motivated, intelligent troops, (i.e. volunteers)
If we actually caused a resrgence of national pride, kids serving maybe wouldn't be so resentful...and I'd say Vietnam might not have happened if we'd had a draft before it started.

If we actually caused a resrgence of national pride, kids serving maybe wouldn't be so resentful...and I'd say Vietnam might not have happened if we'd had a draft before it started.

But didn't the attack on September 11th lead to a mass flurry of volunteers for the armed forces? I'm unsure that American kid's don't have pride in their country. I find many American's to be very proud of their country, i.e. "the shining city upon the hill idea", seems very much alive when I talk to them in the UK and when I travel to the States.

I just think the Draft might bring you short-term gains but long-term problems, whether that be social or in tactical operations.

Yeah, they used it because it's such an unpopular idea. Dem leaders tried to use it as a weapon against the war in Iraq. Any politician talking about instituiting a draft would get booted out. It is political suicide. Jalula is definitely in the minority. I disagree with the draft on the grounds Jalula supports it.

Yeah, I know it. As much chance of a draft as of having a balanced budget...
Can't make me stop hoping for it, though.
It changes who you are as a person. Jalula emphasizes the positives, but there are many negatives to the military mode of thinking. For example, my cousin joined the military to pay for college. Through the course of training, he changed from a gentle kid from rural Florida to a man willing to kill for an Idea (caps for a reason). That scares me, deeply.
I have been in the service a total of 8 years (6 active, quit to go to college, got pulled back into Iraq as I was using the National Guard to pay for school) and I can safely say I DON'T WANT TO KILL ANYONE! My twin goals in Iraq here are to not KILL and to no be KILLED.
Most of the folks in my unit agree with me; I won't deny there are some who agree with your cousin. Military discipline - self discipline in general - can have one of two effects; it can either teach you about controlling yourself, balancing your actions, and doing what needs to be done - all things that increase individuality - or it can make you stop thinking and only listen to the voice of authority. I'd say the folks in that 2nd group probably end up that way without self discipline, though.

If we actually caused a resrgence of national pride, kids serving maybe wouldn't be so resentful...and I'd say Vietnam might not have happened if we'd had a draft before it started.
Again you put emphasis on national pride. In the military you're not supposed to question, its more about allegience.

(I try to be consistent ;) )

But didn't the attack on September 11th lead to a mass flurry of volunteers for the armed forces? I'm unsure that American kid's don't have pride in their country. I find many American's to be very proud of their country, i.e. "the shining city upon the hill idea", seems very much alive when I talk to them in the UK and when I travel to the States.

I just think the Draft might bring you short-term gains but long-term problems, whether that be social or in tactical operations.
9-11 made recruitment jump through the ceiling - and the continued quagmire in Iraq has sent it through the floor. One of the reasons I support a draft is I think it could preserve and maintain that post 9-11 feeling...

and yet some congressmen do have kids in the service and in harms way and they still voted to for sending them there.

Go figure.

Only about 1-2% of our senators or congressmen(about 5) have sons in the millitary. Most all don't have to worry about close personal connections with the troops.

Again you put emphasis on national pride. In the military you're not supposed to question, its more about allegience.

(I try to be consistent ;) )
I think a lot of folks think that; the truth is, though, that while there are situations in the military where an order has to be followed NOW (say, in combat:
Sarge:"Johnson, Take That Hill"
PVT Johnson: "Wait Sarge, I have a better idea!")
for the most part independent thinking and initiative are sought after and rewarded in the military.

9-11 made recruitment jump through the ceiling - and the continued quagmire in Iraq has sent it through the floor. One of the reasons I support a draft is I think it could preserve and maintain that post 9-11 feeling...
That feeling of unity, as it were, came from fear though.

9-11 made recruitment jump through the ceiling - and the continued quagmire in Iraq has sent it through the floor. One of the reasons I support a draft is I think it could preserve and maintain that post 9-11 feeling...

But you're a serving soldier. You have been and probably will be in more combat situations. Would you want the best quality soldier having your back than some lesser quality soldier?

I'm v.interested in your comment "quagmire". In your opinion, is that what Iraq is now?

That feeling of unity, as it were, came from fear though.
Yeah, some of it. A lot was something else though: a unity and national pride we hadn't felt since before I was born. Wouldn't it be great to get that back, sans fear?

Only about 1-2% of our senators or congressmen(about 5) have sons in the millitary. Most all don't have to worry about close personal connections with the troops.

DOesn't matter. They have kids in the military and they still voted to send them into harms way. It blows the theory sky heaven.

Draft is acceptable and should be done if the United States is threatened directly (meaning the war is coming to our homes, or if another SuperPower declares war on us).

Individuality won't matter if this country get taken over, I don't think the occupying forces will really care what the good American people think about. All those great freedoms we soak in now won't exist.

So in end this, Yes Draft is required, by only when truly needed. The old quote: "Freedom isn't free" comes to mind.

Yeah, some of it. A lot was something else though: a unity and national pride we hadn't felt since before I was born. Wouldn't it be great to get that back, sans fear?
I think there is a difference between nationalism and a society. You can still have close connections with each other in a community without the many of the traits of nationalism.

But you're a serving soldier. You have been and probably will be in more combat situations. Would you want the best quality soldier having your back than some lesser quality soldier?
At the risk of offending a lot of folks (glad this is anonymous) the guys who join the military aren't always the best and brightest guys in the US. Me for example: I am a Math/Physics major now w/ a 4.0 GPA at the University of Wisconsin - I JOINED, however, because I had a 2.49 GPA in High School, and skipped more classes than I attended.
In general I think the draft would help kids with this - once you do something really difficult and succeed, it is easier to really apply yourself and expect success in school.
I'm v.interested in your comment "quagmire". In your opinion, is that what Iraq is now?
I don't see what else you could call it. I hope for the best, but I fear the worst.

DOesn't matter. They have kids in the military and they still voted to send them into harms way. It blows the theory sky heaven.
Nah, the govt. types with kids in now probably are from conservative, patriotic families where they expect their kids to fight for America. Put Alexandra Kerry in uniform, and ol' John might not have voted for war...

Remember all the draftees fleeing to Canada during Veitnam? same thing would happen now.

I am very against mandatory service. There are enough people who want to join the military, or need to for financial assistance, that a draft should not be needed.

Nah, the govt. types with kids in now probably are from conservative, patriotic families where they expect their kids to fight for America. Put Alexandra Kerry in uniform, and ol' John might not have voted for war...

You may have a point but my point is still valid as well.

I think there is a difference between nationalism and a society. You can still have close connections with each other in a community without the many of the traits of nationalism.
Well, it depends on how you are using the word Nationalism. I have never met a group of people, be it a school band, a city neighborhood, a platoon in the Army or anything else, where there was community with no pride in that community. That's what I'm talking about - not the feeling that the US is better than everyone else and we can monkey stomp our enemies, just pride in being united and American...

National service would be more popular if you know you are not going to die in some foreign soil in the near future. A national service for Singapore works. A national service for America would fail very terribly. That is not the fault of 'national service', but the fault of 'America'.

I don't see what else you could call it. I hope for the best, but I fear the worst.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to run with this, but I am particularly interested in this subject. I have heard opinions from friends and family that have served in Iraq or will be going back. But only very few from American soldiers.

Could you give a couple of things you've seen that suggest to you Iraq is a "quagmire". If you don't want to discuss lt, that's cool, but I hear very few serving American opinions on the conflict.

I am very against mandatory service. There are enough people who want to join the military, or need to for financial assistance, that a draft should not be needed.
Cool, man. As long as those poor kids fight for our country, why should rich people bother? :)

I don't see what else you could call it. I hope for the best, but I fear the worst.

Sorry to run with this, but I am particularly interested in this subject. I have heard opinions from friends and family that have served in Iraq or will be going back. But only very few from American soldiers.

Could you give a couple of things you've seen that suggest to you Iraq is a "quagmire". If you don't want to discuss lt, that's cool, but I hear very few serving American opinions on the conflict.

I want to know too because my father is going back to the desert but he doesn't believe it to be a quagmire.

Well, it depends on how you are using the word Nationalism. I have never met a group of people, be it a school band, a city neighborhood, a platoon in the Army or anything else, where there was community with no pride in that community. That's what I'm talking about - not the feeling that the US is better than everyone else and we can monkey stomp our enemies, just pride in being united and American...
Okay, sorry about that. I still believe that if you want someone to have pride in their community it should be voluntary.
On a side note, would you mind if I interviewed you for my blog? Its nothing much but its has about ten subscribers.

Sorry to run with this, but I am particularly interested in this subject. I have heard opinions from friends and family that have served in Iraq or will be going back. But only very few from American soldiers.

Could you give a couple of things you've seen that suggest to you Iraq is a "quagmire". If you don't want to discuss lt, that's cool, but I hear very few serving American opinions on the conflict.
There is hope - plenty of people were excited about the elections, and want democracy. But the folks here are so poor and so polarized it is hard to believe that democracy could work.
I've heard Kurds talk about stupid, lazy arabs - and say all arabs should be executed.
I've heard Shia arabs say that Sunni arabs should all be arrested.
I've heard Sunni arabs say that the Shia arabs are going use the new govt. to retaliate against them.
We'll get attacked in a town where everyone swears they are friendly - and noone will tell us who attacked us.
I've seen plenty of villages where "Who is in charge?" isn't half as important as "What are we going to eat next week?"
I'm not saying there isn't hope - just that until we find a way to unify, educate and remove the Iraqis from poverty, Democracy has a slim hope...

Okay, sorry about that. I still believe that if you want someone to have pride in their community it should be voluntary.
On a side note, would you mind if I interviewed you for my blog? Its nothing much but its has about ten subscribers.
Sure, no problem.

Probably not Jalula! The Sunnis are starting to jump onto the bandwagon.

Now that's progress.

Sure, no problem.
I'll TG you the link and some questions.

If we were in danger of being attacked on our soil, I think a draft would be acceptable. Not that I wouldn't be in Canada faster than you can say, "Eh?" but still. No way am I dying for my country.

There is hope - plenty of people were excited about the elections, and want democracy. But the folks here are so poor and so polarized it is hard to believe that democracy could work.
I've heard Kurds talk about stupid, lazy arabs - and say all arabs should be executed.
I've heard Shia arabs say that Sunni arabs should all be arrested.
I've heard Sunni arabs say that the Shia arabs are going use the new govt. to retaliate against them.
We'll get attacked in a town where everyone swears they are friendly - and noone will tell us who attacked us.
I've seen plenty of villages where "Who is in charge?" isn't half as important as "What are we going to eat next week?"
I'm not saying there isn't hope - just that until we find a way to unify, educate and remove the Iraqis from poverty, Democracy has a slim hope...

I have read and have heard similar things to what you're saying, thanks for the information, but can I ask, when you engage the insurgents, or whomever, do you feel/get the sense of/know that they are attacking you because they see you as occupiers, (i.e. indigenious Iraqi resistance), or are they outside fighters, (eg Non-Iraqis). As a side question, have you had much dealings with British troops, and if so what's your opinion of them?

I'm from the UK and my father served in the Royal Air Force. He has never tried to make me or my brother join the Forces. In the 1950's the UK had national service, they had so many people that it cost tax payers masses and the conscripts had nothing better to do than cut the grass lawn with nail clippers.
the armed forces were full of poorly trained demoralised troops, that's why the UK got rid of it.
And this talk of national pride... From where I am I think America has too much as it is.
Singing the national anthem in state schools...?????! WTF?!
A nation is built up of individuals that contribute to a whole. It's time to stop dreaming about "the good ole days". We no longer have to be like our fathers and their fathers before them. We can give our own skills to this world.

I have read and have heard similar things to what you're saying, thanks for the information, but can I ask, when you engage the insurgents, or whomever, do you feel/get the sense of/know that they are attacking you because they see you as occupiers, (i.e. indigenious Iraqi resistance), or are they outside fighters, (eg Non-Iraqis). As a side question, have you had much dealings with British troops, and if so what's your opinion of them?
Most of the insurgents in my area are locals who want the US out - one even told me they want democracy, but not American Christian demcoracy...
We have had some Iranian fighters though, too - usually they are better trained, better equipped and MUCH NASTIER than the locals, too.
I have just talked to some Brits a bit - they seem pretty cool though, and have really cool looking vehicles (some sort of white truck looking thing.)

I say no because a non volutneer service sucks. Draft is not nessecary and will not be used unless like the US is invaded, etc. But then most people would want to join. And I don't see that happening in the near future.

Most of the insurgents in my area are locals who want the US out - one even told me they want democracy, but not American Christian demcoracy...
We have had some Iranian fighters though, too - usually they are better trained, better equipped and MUCH NASTIER than the locals, too.
I have just talked to some Brits a bit - they seem pretty cool though, and have really cool looking vehicles (some sort of white truck looking thing.)

Thanks for the information. I'm unsure of the British vechicles that you have described, (unless the Brits have stolen a load of UN vechiles or are driving about in Ice Cream vans....now that would be a thought).

And good luck with your Tour. I hope you and your friends remain safe and sound. God be with you.

Wonderful counter argument!
I didn't have time to formulate a full post.

It's just twisted logic. Peopel who support the war often have children who support the war (the apple doesn't far fall from the tree) and those children tend to voluntarily go. All this would do would mean those who don't support it have to go to. Those who do support it go anyway. If people will only take interest in government dealings when it could cause them to go to war, then they need to be a little less apathetic.

As for the other stuff in your, our army is already incredibely strong. More people might actually leave the army with people who they don't know what to do with. An all volunteer army is more than strong enough.

Finally, building nationalism sounds a little too Fascist for me. "You will love America. You will fight for America. You will die for America." Unquestioning loayalty and compulsurary military service are the staples of many dictatorships. I know that being forced into service would only cause me hatred for the U.S. government.

Finally, not many people are cut out for military service, either physically or mentally. We've already had drafts, look at Vietnam, it failed. It breeded an army of half-assed soldiers who wanted nothing more than to get out. How effective can an army be when the people don't want to fight.

if i were drafted i would just pretend i was gay and hit on my commanding officer

if i were drafted i would just pretend i was gay and hit on my commanding officer

Best way out I've heard of yet.