Mandatory 2 Year Military Service after HS?

[OFFascist]

I dont think actual service should be mandatory, but I do think something like a better version of JROTC should be mandatory in public schools.

Definately need to train people how to properly use firearms, and rifles in particular.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You make a good point, but we still have the Iraqi war to finish and nobody seems to want to fight it. We can't keep the same troops over there indefintely.

It would seem to me that the lack of volunteers is the people's way of saying that the troops should be brought back home.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
I dont think actual service should be mandatory, but I do think something like a better version of JROTC should be mandatory in public schools.

Definately need to train people how to properly use firearms, and rifles in particular.

that's a great idea - then anyone who can't afford private school is all set for a career in the military and to go and fight the wars forced on us by future politicians who went to private schools!!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You make a good point, but we still have the Iraqi war to finish and nobody seems to want to fight it. We can't keep the same troops over there indefintely.

It would seem to me that the lack of volunteers is the people's way of saying that the troops should be brought back home.

We're kind of OT here, but wrapping up Iraq could take a long time.

I guess if we're talking sending a message to the goverment then it would be OK for the soldiers at home on leave to go AWOL also? Why should they go back and risk their life? I mean what's fair is fair. It's the people's way, right?

Then again, maybe it isn't that simple?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We're kind of OT here, but wrapping up Iraq could take a long time.

I guess if we're talking sending a message to the goverment then it would be OK for the soldiers at home on leave to go AWOL also? Why should they go back and risk their life? I mean what's fair is fair. It's the people's way, right?

Then again, maybe it isn't that simple?

You are confusing the issue. That's not the people's way. The soldiers cannot go AWOL. They have volunteered and sworn to do their duty. They are obligated by their oaths and by just law to fulfill it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We're kind of OT here, but wrapping up Iraq could take a long time.

I guess if we're talking sending a message to the goverment then it would be OK for the soldiers at home on leave to go AWOL also? Why should they go back and risk their life? I mean what's fair is fair. It's the people's way, right?

Then again, maybe it isn't that simple?

You are confusing the issue. That's not the people's way. The soldiers cannot go AWOL. They have volunteered and sworn to do their duty. They are obligated by their oaths and by just law to fulfill it.

They signed up, but they got way more then they expected. For other people to sit back and justify their position with the excuse that they didn't sign up just doesn't cut it for me. I think they are just rationalizing their position. Nothing I can do about it, but it's the way I feel.

Now crank in the fact that this occupation could go on for years before we come to a suitable solution and I see a problem on the horizon. We either have to up the ante to get more people to enlist (hopefully re-enlist IMO) or start drafting them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
I dont think actual service should be mandatory, but I do think something like a better version of JROTC should be mandatory in public schools.

Definately need to train people how to properly use firearms, and rifles in particular.

Why? For the majorit of people, shooting isn't exactly a useful skill...at least relative to other skills they could be learning. I'd rather they work on teaching kids math before teaching them to shoot a rifle.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
I dont think actual service should be mandatory, but I do think something like a better version of JROTC should be mandatory in public schools.

Definately need to train people how to properly use firearms, and rifles in particular.

That is truly bizarre. I would rather train people advanced mathematics and science instead of how to shoot some rifle.

If there is any mandatory type of service, then it should be to actually learn something that is more useful than shooting a rifle and being a soldier. It should be to educate people as scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.

 

[TheSlamma]

It would fail miserably,

For starters the military can TURN YOU DOWN, I know I opened my mouth and said yes I went to the hospitol when I was 7 with a respatory problem, the b!tch doctor at MEPS disqualified me in a heartbeat, the man in charge at the MEPS station said I could try a methacoline challenge and if I passed he would waive it and let me in. Was not gonna pay $800 to take a test to get me in.

Anyway I forsee people faking being sick to get out and most of all I see the upper class again getting their kids out of service since many upper class are doctors and lawyers it wouldn't take much but floods of rich kids with "health issues" in their past and none of them going in.

It would simply fail miserably

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They signed up, but they got way more then they expected. For other people to sit back and justify their position with the excuse that they didn't sign up just doesn't cut it for me. I think they are just rationalizing their position. Nothing I can do about it, but it's the way I feel.

Now crank in the fact that this occupation could go on for years before we come to a suitable solution and I see a problem on the horizon. We either have to up the ante to get more people to enlist (hopefully re-enlist IMO) or start drafting them.

All I can say is that I think you're attempting to use one wrong to justify another. If the people were truly in favor of the war in Iraq, they'd be lining up to enlist. But they're not, so they don't.
It's crucial to understand, I think, that the military literally begged for this war. They voted en masse for GW with hopes that he would give it to them. They got it. I support their efforts and their lives, but I won't feel sorry for them.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They signed up, but they got way more then they expected. For other people to sit back and justify their position with the excuse that they didn't sign up just doesn't cut it for me. I think they are just rationalizing their position. Nothing I can do about it, but it's the way I feel.

Now crank in the fact that this occupation could go on for years before we come to a suitable solution and I see a problem on the horizon. We either have to up the ante to get more people to enlist (hopefully re-enlist IMO) or start drafting them.

All I can say is that I think you're attempting to use one wrong to justify another. If the people were truly in favor of the war in Iraq, they'd be lining up to enlist. But they're not, so they don't.
It's crucial to understand, I think, that the military literally begged for this war. They voted en masse for GW with hopes that he would give it to them. They got it. I support their efforts and their lives, but I won't feel sorry for them.

I see what your saying about one wrong to justify another.

If we're just going to pack our bags and leave Iraq, then that's what we should do....and the sooner the better. If we decide to stay and try to alleviate the mess we've made, then we're going to be there a while. I don't see staying as an option unless we can get enough people willing to do the fighting and risk their lives.

I guess to me, the reality of the situation is that we should try and fix things as best we can and to do that is going to take some time and commiment. I don't see how that can be accomplished without anybody willing to join the military.

I really don't see any in-between-ground on this??? Our options are limited, because you can't fight a war without cannon fodder.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In America if you're a male you must register with selective service. That doesn't put you in an army but it makes you eligible for a draft should one occur. If you choose not to register you are prohibited from anything...no voting, no licenses, no government money or jobs, etc. While I'm for a simliar system, it's ultimately sexist that only males must register, and my previous point that it can't be just military or military support services.

Once enlisted in the US military you have no actual say of where you go, when or why. You can request particular duty stations, but it's not up to you if you get them.

I don't see any need to extend service length for non-military...service to your people is service to your people. To me it seems to punish people who are mature enough to solve their differences without fighting. *shrug*

Thanks for the explanation of the draft concept.

The longer civil duty in Switzerland is in fact concepted as proof that you've ethical problems with serving in the military. One may consider it a punishment for avoiding the risk of death in case of war, too. There are plans to lower the factor to 1.3 but I didn't follow the discussions.

 

[AndrewR]

Late to the thread, but my response, from someone in the military, is NO WAY. We have enough people in uniform who would rather be elsewhere (and often then want to be back in uniform when they leave, ironically!), and the conscripts would be useless and a drain on the already thin resources.

The military will continue to shrink and will continue to become more specialized. Conscripts are worse than useless.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They signed up, but they got way more then they expected. For other people to sit back and justify their position with the excuse that they didn't sign up just doesn't cut it for me. I think they are just rationalizing their position. Nothing I can do about it, but it's the way I feel.

Now crank in the fact that this occupation could go on for years before we come to a suitable solution and I see a problem on the horizon. We either have to up the ante to get more people to enlist (hopefully re-enlist IMO) or start drafting them.

All I can say is that I think you're attempting to use one wrong to justify another. If the people were truly in favor of the war in Iraq, they'd be lining up to enlist. But they're not, so they don't.
It's crucial to understand, I think, that the military literally begged for this war. They voted en masse for GW with hopes that he would give it to them. They got it. I support their efforts and their lives, but I won't feel sorry for them.

They thought they were going to fight a war that was based agaisnt an evil man who possed Weapons of Mass Destruction, Funded Terrorism and murdered his own people.

A lot of people would like to follow their leaders, I feel sorry for a lot of the soliders in Iraq. There is no way I expect anyone to fight for a lie or potentially risk their life for one.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we can't get enough volunteers to do the job, then get ready for a draft or mandatory service of some type. Just because it "isn't fair" won't stop the goverment.

Is it fair to extend the duty and commitment of the soilders we currently have because they can't get enough volunteers??

Yes. The best way to check an overly aggressive government in a democracy is to force it to deal with a shortage of volunteers.

Yeah, and to heck with the poor SOB's who got caught of the short end of the stick. If only it were that simple.

It is that simple. Were the draft allowed, the government could get away with most any military abuse it felt like, simply by drafting more cannon fodder.

I still see it happening in 10-20 years when we fight China.

10-20 years? You're quite the optomist.

 

[schmedy]

Rabidmongoose, you have a good point on training them to be scientists and such, but not everyone is smart, there is always the fry cook at Mc Donalds or guy who pumps gas. Not that they are bad jobs but they may get more out of the military.

Anyway, I was in the Marine Corps for 6 years and would say no way to concription, it would flood the military with people who don't want to be there. It's a nice idea but the military isn't a magic pill to make them lean, respectful, and useful, that was why we had a high attrition rate in Marine Boot Camp, not everyone is meant to be a Marine(or in any other branch too). A better alternative would be people would have some nationalistic pride and want to give back not forcing them to do it. Everyone wants free programs from the Govt but they don't seem to want to give back.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Rabidmongoose, you have a good point on training them to be scientists and such, but not everyone is smart, there is always the fry cook at Mc Donalds or guy who pumps gas. Not that they are bad jobs but they may get more out of the military.

I agree and that's why I think there should be an exception to the program where you can graduate with a certain degree (sciences, engineering, mathematics, medical related, etc. or if you're at a certain level of academic success) and not enroll into a military or civil program.

 

[dchwdude]

Here in Utah, that would cause a HUGE uproar. Most of us LDS folk here in utah go away for two years as missionaries . . . at 19 years old. What would happen there?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we can't get enough volunteers to do the job, then get ready for a draft or mandatory service of some type. Just because it "isn't fair" won't stop the goverment.

Is it fair to extend the duty and commitment of the soilders we currently have because they can't get enough volunteers??

Yes. The best way to check an overly aggressive government in a democracy is to force it to deal with a shortage of volunteers.

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we can't get enough volunteers to do the job, then get ready for a draft or mandatory service of some type. Just because it "isn't fair" won't stop the goverment.

Is it fair to extend the duty and commitment of the soilders we currently have because they can't get enough volunteers??

Yes. The best way to check an overly aggressive government in a democracy is to force it to deal with a shortage of volunteers.

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

Hah!! Bigotry, that's actually funny. You mean "reverse bigotry" I think. :laugh:

 

[YoshiSato]

2 years in the National guard or maybe the reserves, however given the current state of afairs and US foreign policy this is not a good idea. The National guard should not meant to be fightihng on the front like in another country. Their job is to protect the home land at home. The National guard is meant for situations like Katrina but where are they? Iraq which is FUBAR.

As far as Israel requiring the 2 years of service, well they are not in the business of getting involved in over seas snafus. Their military protects the Israel homeland at home and if anyone attack them they swiftly take action againts their enemies. The Isralies also take land they won. They don't bomb a city, give it back and then pay to rebuild. At least they didnt before.

 

[UptheMiddle]

Its painfully obvious that the vast majority of the people posting here have never been in the military. Like all military positions are those of grunts :roll: In the military you can learn such skills as operating a nuclear power plant, electronics, diving, engine repair, construction, security, flying jets/helicopters, seamanship.....the list goes on and on. They test you prior to entry to determine what you're qualified for.

The earlier comments about learning math.....that's fine and dandy, but our over pompous educational system should also teach skills that require hands on application. For all the college that I've had, my cousin (who operates heavy construction equipment) makes well over twice what I make and I'm fortunate enough to have a well-paying job.

I think a mandatory 2 year service would be great.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Wow.. I'm starting to get scared.